Modernise Vanguard and the KGV’s for the 1980s

[Hood]

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.

If that is true then Queen Lizzie II had to wait a long time (62 years) to get her namesake ship...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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)

FWIW no aircraft carrier names were aircraft carrier names until used as such. They were mostly traditional ship-of-the-line and/or battleship names or the names of merchant ships that had been converted to seaplane carriers in World War One.

 

[EwenS]

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 naming policy didn't last long enough to become a "tradition". Yellow Palace posted the following just last year on the subject.

"The supposed tradition wasn't around when Victoria and her predecessors reigned, the first battleships of Edward VII and George V's reigns were named for them, Edward VIII didn't reign long enough to draw a conclusion, and wasn't applied when George VI reigned. Neither CVA-01 nor the current QUEEN ELIZABETH were really named for Elizabeth II, either - the regnal numbers matter!

As traditions go, it really only lasted a decade. Which, in the centuries of the Royal Navy's existence, makes it less a tradition and more a historical happenstance."


And the official word about the naming of the current carrier Queen Elizabeth, which is not named for the late Queen Elizabeth II.

Royal Navy confirm which monarch HMS Queen Elizabeth is named for

The name HMS Queen Elizabeth is a continuation of an historic Royal Navy name dating back over a century and the vessel herself is not named after the current monarch, despite a popular misconception to the contrary.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 157.

I counted 11 active strike carriers in 1975, which you might as well increase to 12 by adding the third Audacious or a sixth CVA.01 as the marginal cost of building & operating a 12th strike carrier would be within the financial capabilities of a UK which was that rich. However, as you're making the UK rich enough to afford to build and operate 12 aircraft carriers of that size I think the RN would have preferred a smaller number of larger ships, i.e. 6 Kitty Hawk equivalents. Together they'd carry about the same number of combat aircraft as 12 smaller ships, have the same number of catapults & lifts as 12 smaller ships and although this is a money-no-object thread they'd cost less to build & operate and that includes the capital cost of building the larger dry docks.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

That naming policy didn't last long enough to become a "tradition". Yellow Palace posted the following just last year on the subject.

"The supposed tradition wasn't around when Victoria and her predecessors reigned, the first battleships of Edward VII and George V's reigns were named for them, Edward VIII didn't reign long enough to draw a conclusion, and wasn't applied when George VI reigned. Neither CVA-01 nor the current QUEEN ELIZABETH were really named for Elizabeth II, either - the regnal numbers matter!

As traditions go, it really only lasted a decade. Which, in the centuries of the Royal Navy's existence, makes it less a tradition and more a historical happenstance."


And the official word about the naming of the current carrier Queen Elizabeth, which is not named for the late Queen Elizabeth II.

Royal Navy confirm which monarch HMS Queen Elizabeth is named for

The name HMS Queen Elizabeth is a continuation of an historic Royal Navy name dating back over a century and the vessel herself is not named after the current monarch, despite a popular misconception to the contrary.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

The following is an observation, not a criticism . . .

In that post the phrase "named for" was used when I would have used "named after". Using the former instead of the latter is something that I've noticed in recent months and I suspect has been going one for a few years. Why did it change?

For what it's worth I think "named after" sounds right and "named for" sounds wrong and if it sounds right it's usually right and if it sounds wrong it's usually wrong. However, it could sound right to me because it's what I'm used to instead of because it's the correct way to say it.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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

FWIW I suspect that point torpedoes at big ships was a RN mission for much longer than you thought too. That's why ships like the Daring class kept their 21in anti-ship torpedoes for as long as they did. The torpedoes (like the big guns on the battleships and cruisers) were to be pointed at Soviet cruisers.

I suspect that the post-war RN initially preferred 21in A/S torpedoes to the 12.75in variety for its surface warship because they'd be more effective in the anti-surface role and/or the tubes could also fire bespoke anti-ship torpedoes. Even the County and Leander classes were designed to be fitted with some 21in torpedo tubes. Again, I suspect that they were 21in rather than 12.75 in because they could be fired at Soviet cruisers as well as Soviet submarines. Can anyone confirm or refute that?

If I remember correctly many of the post-war USN surface warships had a pair of 21in torpedo tubes in addition to the standard fit of six 12.75in tubes. Does anyone know if they were to be fired at Soviet cruisers too?

 

[Scott Kenny]

If I remember correctly many of the post-war USN surface warships had a pair of 21in torpedo tubes in addition to the standard fit of six 12.75in tubes. Does anyone know if they were to be fired at Soviet cruisers too?

I'm pretty sure those were strictly ASW torpedoes. Mk37s early on, and the Mk48 surface launch version was cancelled before deployment.

Mk37s would suck as an anti-ship torpedo due to low speed.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm pretty sure those were strictly ASW torpedoes. Mk37s early on, and the Mk48 surface launch version was cancelled before deployment.

Mk37s would suck as an anti-ship torpedo due to low speed.

Fair enough.

Plus they weren't fitted to as many ships as I thought. The Mitscher & Forrest Sherman classes had four 21in tubes and the Belknap class & Truxtun had two Mk 25 torpedo tubes for 21in long-range A/S torpedoes. I thought the Farragut & Leahy classes, Bainbridge and possibly the Charles F Adams class had a pair of Mk 25 tubes too, but I was wrong about that and not all of the Belknap class had the Mk 25 tubes either.

 

[Temeraire]

I counted 11 active strike carriers in 1975, which you might as well increase to 12 by adding the third Audacious or a sixth CVA.01

There originally were three Audacious’ which is why the number ends up as 11. However Ark Royal, due to her poor condition ends up being broken up and replaced by a 5th CVA-01

 

[Temeraire]

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.

Would they though? As I stated previously our current carriers only have the names they do since it would be outrageous to cancel a ship named Queen Elizabeth, during the reign of a Queen Elizabeth. It’s like how the RN outmanoeuvred the government in the 70s with their Invincible class “through deck cruisers”. It’s just politics, something that isn’t really a problem seeing as the chancellor ITTL is literally swimming in money.

 

[Temeraire]

FWIW no aircraft carrier names were aircraft carrier names until used as such. They were mostly traditional ship-of-the-line and/or battleship names or the names of merchant ships that had been converted to seaplane carriers in World War One.

Well there have been Two Hemes, Two Eagles, Two Illustrious’, Three Ark Royals and two Oceans.

All these names are far better than Queen Elizabeth and especially Prince of Wales (which is frankly a tad disrespectful to the last one, and IMO that name should have got the Hood treatment ie. Don’t touch it)

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well there have been Two Hermes, Two Eagles, Two Illustrious’, Three Ark Royals and two Oceans.

No. Those names have been used more times than that. For convenience I've copied and pasted the Wikipedia pages.

Ten ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Hermes, after Hermes, the messenger god of Greek mythology, while another was planned:

• HMS Hermes (1796) was a 12-gun brig-sloop, originally the Dutch Mercurius, that HMS Sylph captured in 1796. Hermes foundered in 1797.
• HMS Hermes (1798) was a 22-gun ship purchased in 1798 and sold in 1802.
• HMS Hermes (1803) was a 16-gun sloop, originally the civilian Majestic launched in 1801 at Whitby. She was purchased in 1803 and sold in 1810.
• HMS Hermes (1811) was a 20-gun sixth rate launched in 1811 and burned in 1814 during a highly unsuccessful attack on Fort Bowyer at Mobile Point, Alabama.
• HMS Hermes was a wooden paddle packet, originally in civilian service as George IV. She was purchased in 1830 as HMS Courier (1830), renamed HMS Hermes in 1832, became a coal hulk and was renamed HMS Charger in 1835, and was broken up in 1854.
• HMS Hermes (1835) was a wooden paddle sloop launched in 1835, rebuilt in 1842 and broken up in 1864.
• HMS Hermes was a 74-gun third rate launched in 1816 as HMS Minotaur (1816), renamed HMS Hermes in 1866, and broken up in 1869.
• HMS Hermes (1898) was a Highflyer-class cruiser launched in 1898, converted into an experimental seaplane tender in 1913 and sunk by a German U-boat in 1914.
• HMS Hermes (95) was the first purpose built aircraft carrier in the world to be launched, in 1919. She was sunk in a Japanese air attack in 1942.
• HMS Hermes was to have been a Centaur-class aircraft carrier, but was cancelled in 1945.
• HMS Hermes (R12) was a Centaur-class aircraft carrier, originally planned as HMS Elephant, but renamed in 1945. She was launched in 1953 and served in the Falklands War. She was sold to the Indian Navy in 1986, who recommissioned her as INS Viraat until finally decommissioned in 2017
• HMS Hermes is the name given to the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier Ship Control Centre Training Simulator situated in the Defence School of Marine Engineering, HMS Sultan, Gosport. It was opened by Flag Officer Sea Training Rear Admiral WJ Warrinder on 28 October 2018. The simulator was built by L3 and is a representation of the Ship Control Centre of the class and is used to train ship staff in machinery operation principles.

Eighteen ships of the Royal Navy have borne the name HMS Eagle, after the eagle.

• HMS Eagle (1592) was an ex-merchantman purchased in 1592 and in use as a careening hulk. She was sold in 1683.
• HMS Eagle (1648) was a 6-gun shallop sloop, listed until 1653.
• HMS Eagle (1650) was a 12-gun ship, previously the French ship Aigle, captured in 1650 and sold in 1655.
• HMS Eagle (1660) was a 22-gun armed ship, previously named HMS Selby. She was renamed HMS Eagle in 1660, used as a fireship from 1674 and sunk as a foundation in 1694.
• HMS Eagle (1670) was a 6-gun fireship captured from the Algerians in 1670 and expended in 1671.
• HMS Eagle (1672) was a 6-gun fireship purchased in 1672 and foundered in 1673.
• HMS Eagle (1679) was a 70-gun third rate launched in 1679, rebuilt in 1699 and wrecked in 1707.
• HMS Eagle (1696) was a 10-gun advice boat launched in 1696 and wrecked in 1703.
• HMS Eagle (c.1745 fireship) was a fireship sunk in 1745 as a breakwater.
• HMS Eagle (1745) was a 58-gun fourth rate launched in 1745 and sold in 1767.
• HMS Eagle (1754) was a 14-gun sloop launched in 1745. Her fate is unknown.
• HMS Eagle (1774) was a 64-gun third rate launched in 1774. She was attacked by the submersible Turtle during the American Revolution, was placed on harbour service from 1790 and renamed HMS Buckingham in 1800. She was broken up in 1812.
• HMS Eagle (1794) was a 4-gun gunvessel, formerly a Dutch hoy purchased in 1794. She was sold in 1804.
• HMS Eagle (1803) was a 12-gun gun-brig, previously the French Venteux. Loire captured her in 1803. The Royal Navy renamed her HMS Eclipse in 1804 and sold her in 1807.
• HMS Eagle (1804) was a 74-gun third rate launched in 1804. She was reduced to 50 guns in 1830 and then became a training school in 1860, being renamed HMS Eaglet in 1918. She was lost in a fire in 1926; the wreck was sold in 1927.
• HMS Eagle (1812) was a one-gun brig built in 1812 that served as a tender to Poictiers. The American fishing smack Yankee used a stratagem to capture Eagle on 4 July 1812.
• HMS Eagle (1814) was an American gunboat captured at the Battle of Lake Borgne on 14 December 1814. She remained in service until at least 4 June 1815.[1] Prize money for her and the other vessels captured at the battle was paid in July 1821.[2]
• HMS Eagle (shore establishment) was the name of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve training facility at Liverpool from 1904. It was renamed HMS Eaglet in 1918.
• HMS Eagle (1918) was an early aircraft carrier, converted from an unfinished Chilean battleship, Almirante Cochrane, launched in 1918, and sunk in 1942.
• HMS Eagle was to have been an Audacious-class aircraft carrier, laid down in 1944, but cancelled in 1945.
• HMS Eagle (R05) was an Audacious-class aircraft carrier originally designated HMS Audacious, launched in 1946 and broken up in 1978.

There have been five ships in the Royal Navy to bear the name HMS Illustrious. The ship's motto is "Vox Non Incerta" which translates as "No Uncertain Sound".

• HMS Illustrious (1789) was a 74-gun third rate, and launched at Buckler's Hard in 1789. She had two engagements against the French Navy, at Toulon in 1793 and at Genoa where she suffered severe damage and won a battle honour. While returning home in tow for repairs she ran aground due to an extremely violent storm. Shortly afterwards she was set ablaze and abandoned.
• HMS Illustrious (1803) was launched at Rotherhithe in 1803 and was like her predecessor a 74-gun third rate. She was involved in battles off the Basque Roads, in which she won a battle honour, and off Java in Indonesia. In 1854 she became a training ship and continued as one until she was broken up in 1868 in Portsmouth.
• HMS Illustrious (1896) was a Majestic-class battleship, launched in 1896 and scrapped in 1920. Two of her 12-inch guns were remounted in the Tyne Turrets.
• HMS Illustrious (87) was an Illustrious-class aircraft carrier commissioned in 1940. In the same year she became the first carrier to strike against an enemy fleet, and was in service until 1954.
• HMS Illustrious (R06) was an Invincible-class aircraft carrier commissioned in 1982 and decommissioned in 2014.

Five ships of the Royal Navy have borne the name HMS Ark Royal:

• Ark Royal (1587), the flagship of the English fleet during the Spanish Armada campaign of 1588
• HMS Ark Royal (1914), planned as freighter, built as seaplane carrier during the First World War, renamed Pegasus in 1934
• HMS Ark Royal (91), British aircraft carrier launched in 1937 which participated in the Second World War and was sunk by a U-boat in 1941
• HMS Ark Royal (R09), an Audacious-class aircraft carrier launched in 1950, decommissioned in 1979
• HMS Ark Royal (R07), an Invincible-class aircraft carrier, launched in 1981, decommissioned in 2011

Six ships that were built for the Royal Navy have borne the name HMS Ocean. The name Ocean entered the list from which names are selected for British ships in 1759, when the Royal Navy captured the French ship named Océan. The British studied the French technology of this ship and admired it, but the ship had to be in bad shape before it would be replaced by a new-build.

• HMS Ocean (1761), was a 90-gun ship of the line built in 1761.
• HMS Ocean (1805), was a 98-gun ship of the line launched in 1805, active in the Napoleonic Wars, and later upgraded to a 110-gun first-rate.
• HMS Ocean (1863) was originally ordered to be built as a Bulwark-class wooden screw line-of battle ship intended to carry 91 guns. However, the order was changed and she was eventually launched in 1863 as a Prince Consort-class ironclad of 24 guns. In the late 1860s she served as flagship to the Commander-in-Chief, China and after an active life of only six years, was paid off in 1872.
• HMS Ocean (1898) was a Canopus-class pre-dreadnought battleship launched in 1898 and sunk by a mine in 1915.
• HMS Ocean (R68) was an Colossus-class aircraft carrier completed in 1945, served in the Korean War as an aircraft carrier, and the Suez Crisis as a helicopter platform and was scrapped in 1962.
• HMS Ocean (L12) was a Landing Platform, Helicopter (LPH) launched in 1995 and decommissioned in March 2018, after which she was transferred to the Brazilian Navy as Atlântico.[1]

All these names are far better than Queen Elizabeth and especially Prince of Wales (which is frankly a tad disrespectful to the last one, and IMO that name should have got the Hood treatment i.e. Don’t touch it)

Although there have only been two ships named HMS Queen Elizabeth the first one had a distinguished war record and being sunk is an occupational hazard for a warship.

Seven ships of the Royal Navy have been named HMS Prince of Wales, after numerous holders of the title the Prince of Wales.

• HMS Prince of Wales (1765) was a 74-gun third rate launched in 1765. She had been originally planned as HMS Hibernia, but the name was changed prior to launch. She was broken up in 1783.
• HMS Prince of Wales (1794) was a 98-gun second rate launched in 1794 and broken up in 1822.
• HMS Prince of Wales (1795) was a 38-gun transport purchased in 1795, and still on the records in 1801.
• HMS Prince of Wales (1860) was a 121-gun screw-propelled first rate launched in 1860. She was converted to a training ship and renamed HMS Britannia in 1869, hulked in 1909 and sold in 1914. She was finally broken up in 1916.
• HMS Prince of Wales (1902) was a London-class battleship launched in 1902 and sold for scrap in 1920.
• HMS Prince of Wales (53) was a King George V-class battleship launched in 1939 and sunk in a Japanese airstrike on 10 December 1941.
• HMS Prince of Wales (R09) is the second Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 171.

. . . and especially Prince of Wales (which is frankly a tad disrespectful to the last one, and IMO that name should have got the Hood treatment i.e. Don’t touch it).

To which I replied.

. . . being sunk is an occupational hazard for a warship.

I'm nonplussed by you finding Prince of Wales (2017) a tad disrespectful to its predecessor. If it was Invincible (1977) & Indefatigable (1942) were a tad disrespectful to their predecessors (battle-cruisers sunk at the Battle of Jutland), the Type 22 frigates Coventry & Sheffield were a tad disrespectful to their predecessors (Type 42 destroyers sunk in the Falklands War) and come to think of it the Type 42 Coventry was a tad disrespectful to its immediate predecessor a C class cruiser that was sunk in1942.

IMHO it's exactly the opposite, the current Prince of Wales and the ships that I mentioned honour their predecessors. (Honour: Transitive verb: to regard or treat (someone) with admiration and respect: to regard or treat with honour.) Furthermore, I think having another ship named Hood would honour her predecessor (rather than be a tad disrespectful) too. Hood would be a very good name for a RN warship if it ever has another Admiral class

The reason why there hasn't been a HMS Hood since the one that sank in 1941 may have been that the RN has many traditional capital ship names (there have been three HMS Hoods) and since 1945 hasn't had enough nuclear powered submarines and large surface warships for them.

 

[EwenS]

While the loss of Hood & PoW were both shocking events for the RN and Britain in 1941, there were 2 marked differences. Hood had become very famous interwar, perhaps even iconic, with her highly publicised world tour. Secondly, the casuaty toll.

Hood took 1,418 men to the bottom in minutes, leaving only 3 survivors. PoW took time to sink and only lost 327 from her crew of 1,612.

Everyone remembers PoW and her loss in Dec 1941. But what of Repulse sunk at the same time? She lost more men than PoW. 513 out of her crew of 1,309. No comment about disrespect to her name. Yet the RN was quite happy to see her name perpetuated in the Polaris sub Repulse completed in 1968.

Honouring ships from RN history by perpetuating names from the past, seems much better than naming them after politicians from the present or recent past or, heaven forfend, some so called "celebrity".

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There originally were three Audacious’ which is why the number ends up as 11. However Ark Royal, due to her poor condition ends up being broken up and replaced by a 5th CVA-01.

Fair enough, in which case I recommend my second suggestion (CVA.06) and while you're at it have the Admiralty realise that rebuilding the Illustrious class wasn't worth it early enough for another pair of 1952 Carriers to be built instead of modernising Illustrious and Victorious. Then your 1975 fleet would have 12 active CV (six 1952 Carriers & 6 CVA.01) and 2 CV (Audacious & Eagle) in reserve.

 

[Temeraire]

air enough, in which case I recommend my second suggestion (CVA.06) and while you're at it have the Admiralty realise that rebuilding the Illustrious class wasn't worth it early enough for another pair of 1952 Carriers to be built instead of modernising Illustrious and Victorious. Then your 1975 fleet would have 12 active CV (six 1952 Carriers & 6 CVA.01) and 2 CV (Audacious & Eagle) in reserve.

The illustrious class were worth rebuilding in my opinion, it’s just the way they botched Victorious that gives them a bad rep. As for a sixth CVA-01 ship, who knows. Maybe the admiralty is able to slip it into the building program.

 

[Temeraire]

No comment about disrespect to her name. Yet the RN was quite happy to see her name perpetuated in the Polaris sub Repulse completed in 1968.

I don’t like the fact that they used her name for the Polaris Sub. Should have been left to history out of respect.

 

[Temeraire]

the Type 22 frigates Coventry & Sheffield

Those are the worst offenders, especially with how soon after their predecessors they came

 

[SSgtC]

I don’t like the fact that they used her name for the Polaris Sub. Should have been left to history out of respect.

If Navies stopped using the name of any ship lost in battle, they'd run out of names real damn fast. Should the US have stopped using Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, Arizona, Johnston, etc?

 

[Temeraire]

If Navies stopped using the name of any ship lost in battle, they'd run out of names real damn fast. Should the US have stopped using Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, Arizona, Johnston, etc?

You know what, you’re right.
I guess i just don’t like the fact they named the carriers Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales instead of naming them after previous carriers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Those are the worst offenders, especially with how soon after their predecessors they came.

Plus I'd forgotten that the replacements for RFA Sir Galahad and MV Atlantic Conveyor were also named RFA Sir Galahad and MV Atlantic Conveyor. But we didn't get Type 22s named Ardent and Antelope.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If Navies stopped using the name of any ship lost in battle, they'd run out of names real damn fast. Should the US have stopped using Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp, Hornet, Arizona, Johnston, etc?

Arizona wasn't re-used till the last of the surviving Pearl Harbor crew passed.

 

[SSgtC]

Arizona wasn't re-used till the last of the surviving Pearl Harbor crew passed.

Not exactly. The name was announced in 2019. At that time, there were still a few Arizona Survivors left.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Considering a deep update/refit for service into the 80's, 90's etc, would it have been possible to fit Vanguard with gas turbines? Possible a partial diesel fit?

 

[Dilandu]

Considering a deep update/refit for service into the 80's, 90's etc, would it have been possible to fit Vanguard with gas turbines? Possible a partial diesel fit?

Possible, but I doubt it would be practical. Such massive reconstruction would require a massive investments - much more than could be justified.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Considering a deep update/refit for service into the 80's, 90's etc, would it have been possible to fit Vanguard with gas turbines? Possible a partial diesel fit?

Probably not. It would take a huge amount of re-work to do that.

You'd have to buy new reduction gears, which are some of the most expensive single items on a warship. (and possibly controllable pitch screws, which are not cheap)

 

[Foo Fighter]

Simpler to go full electric which at the time would not have been feaseable.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Does it have to be geared turbines? Could it be some type of turbo-electric propulsion like CODLAG used on the Type 23s? Or as has been proposed for the gas turbine powered ALT-CVA.01 use turbo-electric drive instead of mechanical drive. (If mechanical drive is the correct expression.) If it was feasible it would reduce the size of the crew and retain some of their usefulness as training ships as the RN converts from steam turbine to gas turbine propulsion.

However as this is a money no object/fantasy thread does the cost of the conversion or reduction in the crew's size matter?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Simpler to go full electric which at the time would not have been feasible.

I've been ninja'd!

It's roughly concurrent with the Type 23 which had CODLAG. And as this is a money no object/fantasy thread anyway we could alter the development of gas turbine propulsion in the RN.

For example the Hotham trials planned IOTL go ahead. HMS Hotham was a turbo-electric powered destroyer escort which the RN kept after the war. The plan was that the one of the steam turbines be replaced by a gas turbine so its performance could be measured against the performance of the remaining steam turbine. Have them take place as planned and make them a success then maybe we see the TTL versions of Types 21, 22 & 42 having full electric drive.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I've been ninja'd!

It's roughly concurrent with the Type 23 which had CODLAG. And as this a money no object/fantasy thread anyway we could alter the development of gas turbine propulsion in the RN.

For example the Hotham trials planned IOTL go ahead. HMS Hotham was a turbo-electric powered destroyer escort which the RN kept after the war. The plan was that the one of the steam turbines be replaced by a gas turbine so its performance could be measured against the performance of the remaining steam turbine. Have them take place as planned and make them a success then maybe we see the TTL versions of Types 21, 22 & 42 having full electric drive.

That's much easier because you're hooking the gas turbine up to a generator. That generator is designed for different input speeds already.

If you're trying to do a mechanical drive, well, usually the steam turbines spin at something absurd like 30,000rpm and the reduction gears are set up accordingly. You'd need the output of the gas turbine to spin at the same speed as the steam turbine to avoid having to redesign the reduction gears.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Does it have to be geared turbines? Could it be some type of turbo-electric propulsion like CODLAG used on the Type 23s? Or as has been proposed for the gas turbine powered ALT-CVA.01 use turbo-electric drive instead of mechanical drive. (If mechanical drive is the correct expression.) If it was feasible it would reduce the size of the crew and retain some of their usefulness as training ships as the RN converts from steam turbine to gas turbine propulsion.

Functionally, you can't replace a steam turbine plant with a gas turbine plant, whether it's mechanical or electrical transmission. The weight and volume requirements are fundamentally different. You have a lot less weight low down, which causes major stability problems. You need to move a lot more air, a lot faster, so you'll need to completely rework the midsection of the ship to fit in the downtakes and uptakes.

You could figure out a way to do it, but it would be very expensive and someone will fairly quickly be asking whether it's worth doing. Especially for a battleship that's - realistically - of fairly limited operational value by the time gas turbine plants are looking at all practical.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Functionally, you can't replace a steam turbine plant with a gas turbine plant, whether it's mechanical or electrical transmission. The weight and volume requirements are fundamentally different. You have a lot less weight low down, which causes major stability problems. You need to move a lot more air, a lot faster, so you'll need to completely rework the midsection of the ship to fit in the downtakes and uptakes.

You could figure out a way to do it, but it would be very expensive and someone will fairly quickly be asking whether it's worth doing. Especially for a battleship that's - realistically - of fairly limited operational value by the time gas turbine plants are looking at all practical.

FWIW I think it's a bad idea too. That's on the grounds of practicability, cost, the age of the ships and as you wrote someone will be asking whether it's worth it. That being written this is a frivolous money-no-object/fantasy thread so those considerations aren't really relevant.

I agree with what you wrote about direct-drive gas turbines. However as I understand it gas turbines with turbo-electric drive can be installed much higher in the ship, which reduces the amount of space required for the air intakes & exhaust. E.g. the CODLAG machinery of the Type 23s was quieter than the COGAG, COGOG & COSAG machinery of its predecessors because it was mounted above the waterline. Is it true that the gas turbines on the Queen Elisabeth class are installed between the hangar and the flight deck? That's what it looked like on the cutaway drawings that I found on the internet. Can the "a lot less weight low down" problem be solved with ballast? I remember a story from the 1980s (which may not be true) about the Type 42 Batch 3s having concrete blocks as ballast. And while I was writing this reply I remembered that the QE2 was converted from steam turbines to diesel-electric in the 1980s. But I'm not a marine engineer so I may be 100% wrong on all counts.

 

[MadRat]

Trimotor outboards added shouldwork. If money is no object, giant outboards are permissible. Never understood why unarmored warships didn't augment their power with large outboards. If your mains go down you have backup power to push your ship around.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Trimotor outboards added shouldwork. If money is no object, giant outboards are permissible. Never understood why unarmored warships didn't augment their power with large outboards. If your mains go down you have backup power to push your ship around.

Subs do have "outboards". US subs have two or three electric motors. One is attached to the prop shaft. The other(s) are external, in the ballast tanks, and are very much like retractable azipods.

 

[uk 75]

I would point a distinction between a thread about modernising Vanguard and KGV battleships in a given period and a thread about.what the Royal Navy would look like if it had a much stronger resource base of money and manpower.

Upgrading the battleships with various means is an interesting exercise within the scope of this site. There have been some useful and well informed contributions along these lines.

Incorporating them in yet another fantasy football team variant of the Royal Navy is not useful. We know from many sources what the RN wanted to do if it had access to enough money and men. It wanted to emulate the USN first with a strike carrier (CVA) like the Forrestal and carrying large aircraft similar to its airgroup. The RN then wanted to build SSNs and SSBNs with similar capabilities to the US boats. Even with escort ships the RN looked with great interest at US designs.

 

[Yellow Palace]

FWIW I think it's a bad idea too. That's on the grounds of practicability, cost, the age of the ships and as you wrote someone will be asking whether it worth it. That being written this is a frivolous money-no-object/fantast thread so those considerations aren't really relevant.

If you're totally unconstrained by such factors, it's far more sensible to lift up the ship's bell, slide a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier underneath, and claim it was a refit.

However as I understand it gas turbines with turbo-electric drive can be installed much higher in the ship, which reduces the amount of space required for the air intakes & exhaust. E.g. the CODLAG machinery of the Type 23s was quieter than the COGAG, COGOG & COSAG machinery of its predecessors because it was mounted above the waterline. Is it true that the gas turbines on the Queen Elisabeth class are installed between the hangar and the flight deck? That's what it looked like on the cutaway drawings that I found on the internet.

You can do that, but then you need to find space higher up. Helps reduce the ducting problem... but you now have vulnerable main machinery, at which point why are you bothering with a battleship? If you armour it, you have a lot more weight high up, making your stability problems worse, and you need to find a steel mill that can make battleship armour. I don't think any were still around in the 1970s.

This isn't an absolute panacaea for layout difficulties caused by GTs, either. The kind of electrical machinery you need to use isn't trivial to integrate into a ship. Not impossible, by any means, but it took a while for navies to feel confident doing it. On the Type 23s, there are main propulsion diesel generators above the waterline, but the GT plant is a conventional geared drive with the turbines below the waterline.

Can the "a lot less weight low down" problem be solved with ballast?

It can, but on a high-density ship (which battleships are) you need to find somewhere to put it. That somewhere, nine times out of ten, winds up being the fuel tanks, cutting down on range.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I would point a distinction between a thread about modernising Vanguard and KGV battleships in a given period and a thread about. what the Royal Navy would look like if it had a much stronger resource base of money and manpower.

Upgrading the battleships with various means is an interesting exercise within the scope of this site. There have been some useful and well informed contributions along these lines.

Incorporating them in yet another fantasy football team variant of the Royal Navy is not useful. We know from many sources what the RN wanted to do if it had access to enough money and men. It wanted to emulate the USN first with a strike carrier (CVA) like the Forrestal and carrying large aircraft similar to its airgroup. The RN then wanted to build SSNs and SSBNs with similar capabilities to the US boats. Even with escort ships the RN looked with great interest at US designs.

If you don't like the game, why do you play? It isn't compulsory.

As you mentioned the RN emulating the USN . . . It kept some battleships in reserve until 1980s when it recommissioned them. So, having the RN keep at least Vanguard to emulate the USN keeping the Iowas (in a TL where the RN has a much stronger base of money and manpower) isn't absurd.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@Yellow Palace, before I reply to what you wrote in Post 196 please note that I don't disagree with many of the things you have written. I'm contributing as a thought experiment.

If you're totally unconstrained by such factors, it's far more sensible to lift up the ship's bell, slide a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier underneath, and claim it was a refit.

FWIW a new ship is what I'd do too, but I'd make it a British equivalent to the CSGN and say that it was to counter the Soviet Kirov & Slava classes. We already have about a dozen strike carriers in @Temeraire's fantasy fleet.

You can do that, but then you need to find space higher up. Helps reduce the ducting problem... but you now have vulnerable main machinery, at which point why are you bothering with a battleship? If you armour it, you have a lot more weight high up, making your stability problems worse, and you need to find a steel mill that can make battleship armour. I don't think any were still around in the 1970s.

We're bothering with a battleship because that's what's the thread's about and I'm regarding it as a thought experiment.

Re the armour there were factories making armour for tanks & AFVs, but to paraphrase British Rail it's probably "the wrong type of armour" and it's also probable that they couldn't they can't make it in the quantities required. As part of the thought experiment could Kevlar-type armour have been used?

This isn't an absolute panacea for layout difficulties caused by GTs, either. The kind of electrical machinery you need to use isn't trivial to integrate into a ship. Not impossible, by any means, but it took a while for navies to feel confident doing it. On the Type 23s, there are main propulsion diesel generators above the waterline, but the GT plant is a conventional geared drive with the turbines below the waterline.

Fair enough. Was I right about the position of the GTs on the Queen Elisabeth class?

It can, but on a high-density ship (which battleships are) you need to find somewhere to put it. That somewhere, nine times out of ten, winds up being the fuel tanks, cutting down on range.

I thought this may have been the one time out of ten. That is the ballast would go where the old steam boilers, steam turbines & their gearing had been.

 

[MadRat]

They might have wanted to emulate France more than the US.

Its not like France immediately scrapped theirs.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@Yellow Palace one part of Post 192 that you didn't comment on in Post 196 was this:

And while I was writing this reply I remembered that the QE2 was converted from steam turbines to diesel-electric in the 1980s.

As a thought experiment . . . would converting the KGV's and Vanguard to diesel-mechanical or diesel-electric in the 1970s or 1980s have been feasible?

I repeat this is a thought experiment. Therefore, you don't have to like it, say it wasn't desirable, say that wasn't cost effective and that if HMG wanted to spend that amount of money a new ship would be a better solution. (FWIW I'd agree with much of that). You only have to say whether or not it was feasible.

To paraphrase a popular television programme of the 1970s.

HMS Vanguard, battleship.​

A warship with worn out machinery.​

Gentlemen, we can rebuild her.​

We have the technology.​

We have the capability to make the world's first diesel-electric propelled battleship.​

HMS Vanguard with be that battleship.​

Better than she was before.​

Better... stronger... faster.​

Did we have the technology? And she doesn't have to be the last two lines, she only has to be as fast as before and have the same range as before.