Modernise Vanguard and the KGV’s for the 1980s

[Yellow Palace]

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?

My suspicion is that the steel mills making AFV armour didn't have appropriately sized equipment for battleship plate. They'd at least still have the knowledge of how to make homogeneous armour - used for deck plates and AFVs - though maybe not face-hardened armour which was preferred for naval belt armour.

As far as Kevlar goes, I don't know. But, given sufficient budget, you could have a lot of fun blowing things up to find out.

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

Not quite, they're in the sponsons directly under the islands.

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.

You'll be wanting that space for the electrical motors and switchboards. It might work out, but space on battleships is tight and you'd need to study it carefully.

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

It must have fallen off the draft, I definitely wrote something.... Diesel-electric would be less horrendous than gas turbines. The weight and space demands are much closer to steam, though you're still replacing the entire machinery spaces. You could even do geared diesels, but electric is actually easier. Shaftline vibrations on geared diesel do weird, nasty things.

 

[Scott Kenny]

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.

I'm pretty sure they could make basic RHA, the trick is whether they can make big plates of it in battleship thicknesses. There aren't a lot of things besides battleships that call for 3x3m plates 30cm thick.

As part of the thought experiment could Kevlar-type armour have been used?

The US certainly used kevlar as the spall liners in the Burke-class.

 

[uk 75]

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.

I have played with the theme of this thread: modernising Vanguard and the KGVs because it has some real world contexts. There were plans to modernise the KGVs with missiles in the early postwar years while the US of course did modernise 4 New Jerseys and had various schemes to add more weapons to them and other ships.
But simply building more CVA01s for example is just a fantasy football team exercise. We have covered realistic numbers of such ships (up to five) in other threads.

 

[Hood]

I think we're missing the biggest upgrade, strap 40 Blue Streaks to it and create Space Battleship HMS Vanguard!

 

[uk 75]

I think we're missing the biggest upgrade, strap 40 Blue Streaks to it and create Space Battleship HMS Vanguard!

Can one of the Shipbucket artists " make it so" while I sip my Earl Grey?

 

[Grey Havoc]

BBBG-23?

 

[Dilandu]

I think we're missing the biggest upgrade, strap 40 Blue Streaks to it and create Space Battleship HMS Vanguard!

Forty Blue Streaks would not pull even one Vanguard turret to the orbit. This rocket was too anemic.

 

[uk 75]

Forty Blue Streaks would not pull even one Vanguard turret to the orbit. This rocket was too anemic.

What about Kruschev deciding to attach some R7s to an alt history Sov battleship?

 

[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

Therefore, when my nine-year-old self was allowed to stay up late and watch "Sailor" in the autumn of 1976 the Phantoms & Buccaneers would have been taking off from CVA.05 instead of Ark Royal. Enjoy!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mN_jsBxVt0

And this (which I'd never seen before) was in the bottom right column.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T3p-masNcQ

And so did this about the Jaguar M (which I'd never seen before either) it isn't relevant to the thread but at least @Archibald will be interested. Though I prefer the Crusaders and Etendard IVM/Ps in "Chevaliers du Ceil/The Aeronauts - Mediterranean Cruise".

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UlvvSH_1g

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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 i.e. Don’t touch it)

Re the Hood treatment . . . as is often the case . . . I found this when I was looking for something else.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctFII5GGXC0

Enough said.

 

[Hood]

Forty Blue Streaks would not pull even one Vanguard turret to the orbit. This rocket was too anemic.

Treasury cutbacks...

 

[SSgtC]

So, I've been doing a little thinking on this, and to reactivate the battleships, the RN needs a reason to return them to service beyond the "rule of cool." This would mean real military uses, along with technological reasons. My suggestion for a possible timeline where they see continued service would look something like this:

1950: Vanguard deploys to Korea in support of United Nations forces in that theater. She arrives in October. Decision to place the KGV class into reserve is rescinded.

1951: Duke of York relieves Vanguard off Korea in April and is relieved in turn by Howe in October. KGV recomissions in December.

1952: KGV deploys to Far East in April to relieve Howe. Vanguard named Home Fleet flagship and relegated to service in the Atlantic and Home Waters to ease logistical problems in the Far East. (Easier to keep parts and ammunition for one class of ship in Singapore than it is to keep it for 2 classes.) Anson recommisons in May and begins workups immediately. Anson relieves KGV in November.

1953: Duke of York deploys for her second tour of duty off Korea and relieves Anson in May. She remains in the Far East until December. Upon end of hostilities in Korea, KGV class and Vanguard kept in service until 1960 before being placed in reserve. Regular deployments as part of NATO training missions and to the Far East take place throughout the rest of the 1950s.

1963: Duke of York reactivated in response to Konfrontassi.

1964: Arrival and heavy bombardment by DoY forces Indonesia to negotiating table.

1965: Peace Treaty signed between Commonwealth and Indonesia, recognizing the creation of Malaysia. DoY placed back in reserve

1969: Vanguard sold for scrap. Decision made that she was a bad fit as a "one off" within the fleet. It is simpler in regards to logistics to maintain 4 ships all using the same spare parts and ammunition.

1980: DoY selected for reactivation and modernization along similar lines to American Iowa class, with reduction in 5.25" secondaries to free up deck space for Tomahawk and Harpoon missiles.

1981: DoY recomissions following her refit. KGV begins reactivation process.

1982: DoY deploys to South Atlantic as part of Task Force to retake Falklands. Conflict sees first combat use of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. During operations there, DoY engages General Belgrano with Harpoon cruise missiles before finishing her off with 14" gunfire.

1983: KGV recomissions and Anson begins reactivation refit. Reactivation of Howe canceled as she is canabalised for spare parts.

1985: Anson recomissions

1985-1990: RN maintains one deployed KGV class battleship throughout the period in support of NATO and Commonwealth missions

1990: DoY rushed to deploy to the Persian Gulf in support of Operation Desert Storm to back up Anson. 2 British and 2 American battleships launch multiple Tomahawk, 14" and 16" strikes on Iraq.

1991: DoY and Anson return triumphant to the UK. Howe sold for scrap.

1992: KGV is placed in reserve

1993: DoY and Anson placed in Reserve

1995: KGV and DoY removed from Reserve Fleet, but retained by Navy to serve as source of spare parts for Anson in case of reactivation

1999: Anson sold for scrap

2000: Duke of York preserved as a museum in Portsmouth

2005: efforts to preserve KGV fail and she is sold for scrap

 

[Dilandu]

1964: Arrival and heavy bombardment by DoY forces Indonesia to negotiating table.

You forgot something?



By 1964, Indonesia have Tu-16KS with KS-1 missiles. As well as missile boats with P-15 missiles. Duke of York, trying to implement "heavy bombardment" would be blown to smitherines.

 

[EwenS]

If you are going to start recommissioning the KGVs then Anson was the best vessel to start with. Her 1944/45 refit gave her 4xMk.VI secondary directors with Type 275 radar. More modern than the Mk.V HACS in DoY and Howe or the Mk.IV HACS in KGV with only the Type 285.

 

[Scott Kenny]

You forgot something?

View attachment 731853View attachment 731854

By 1964, Indonesia have Tu-16KS with KS-1 missiles. As well as missile boats with P-15 missiles. Duke of York, trying to implement "heavy bombardment" would be blown to smitherines.

That's what 3"/70 turrets and whatever the defensive SAMs end up being are for.

I'm 100% in favor of losing the 5.25" turrets for 3"/70 rapid firing guns for the point defense, and then a missile broadly comparable to RAM or Sea Sparrow for the next layer out.

 

[SSgtC]

You forgot something?

View attachment 731853View attachment 731854

By 1964, Indonesia have Tu-16KS with KS-1 missiles. As well as missile boats with P-15 missiles. Duke of York, trying to implement "heavy bombardment" would be blown to smitherines.

Any timeline that sees the UK retaining the battleships also sees them keeping a larger, more effective carrier fleet. You really think a battleship would just be sitting off the coast all by herself? There would be air cover and escorts.

 

[Dilandu]

Any timeline that sees the UK retaining the battleships also sees them keeping a larger, more effective carrier fleet. You really think a battleship would just be sitting off the coast all by herself? There would be air cover and escorts.

Oh yeah, air cover. A small number of transsonic Vixen's against Indonesian Mig-19 and Mig-21. So now you have a burned-out carrier in addition to crippled battleship?

That's what 3"/70 turrets and whatever the defensive SAMs end up being are for.

3-inch guns are quite useless against anti-ship missiles, especially launched in salvo. And the only defensive SAM that could be realistically implemented here would be 1-2 destroyers with Seaslug and maybe Sea Cat on battleship itself.

 

[SSgtC]

Oh yeah, air cover. A small number of transsonic Vixen's against Indonesian Mig-19 and Mig-21. So now you have a burned-out carrier in addition to crippled battleship?

Reading comprehension is such a lost skill. "Larger and more effective carrier fleet." That's what i said. Do you honestly think that if the Royal Navy has the money to throw at keeping 5 fucking battleships in service, that they also wouldn't have bothered to upgrade the carrier Air Groups?

 

[Dilandu]

Reading comprehension is such a lost skill. "Larger and more effective carrier fleet." That's what i said. Do you honestly think that if the Royal Navy has the money to throw at keeping 5 fucking battleships in service, that they also wouldn't have bothered to upgrade the carrier Air Groups?

I honestly think that if Royal Navy have enough money for better carrier groups, they wouldn't need a battleship. Apparently you are making Vietnam War analogue, but there are major difference; while Vietnam did not have anti-ship missiles (mainly due to covert agreement between USSR and USA), Indonesia already have. So an attempt to use Vietnam-era coastal bombardment tactics against Indonesia could quite easily end up with "my lord, I'm sorry to report that Her Majesty Ship Duke of York was tragically lost with all hands, after being hit by coastal-launched missile, that penetrated her turret roof and caused magazine detonation".

 

[uk 75]

View: https://youtu.be/Iu7vySQbgXI?si=NSY3t5LZ6oqQCrD3

 

[JFC Fuller]

3-inch guns are quite useless against anti-ship missiles, especially launched in salvo. And the only defensive SAM that could be realistically implemented here would be 1-2 destroyers with Seaslug and maybe Sea Cat on battleship itself.

First generation anti-ship missiles, specifically including the KS-1 and P-15, weren't regarded as being a particularly difficult threat by the Royal Navy. After a brief panic when they were first seen it was soon concluded that modernised fire-control systems directing even the 4.5" Mk.6 could be effective against them. The 3"/70 firing 90 rounds of proximity fuzed shells a minute would have been even more effective. These missiles were highly subsonic and large, effectively the same characteristics as the early generation jet aircraft that gunfire control systems had been designed to counter since the late 1940s.

A British battleship modernised with 3"/70s, as actually studied, would have had four channels of 3"/70 on each beam, it also would have had EW systems and would have been covered by similarly armed and equipped destroyers, such a formation would have had a reasonable chance against a salvo of first generation anti-ship missiles.

 

[uk 75]

Unfortunately even in Fairytale world the heroes are usually matched by the opposing side.
I shudder to think what other countries would be doing while the Royal Navy deploys five battleships, an ever growing number of carriers and J K Rowling knows what else.

Our favourite enemies ( sorry Dilandu not the USSR) in France, Germany and Spain would not sit idly by and let this happen. Not to mention the USA which faced with a resurgent British Empire would be taking its own measures.

 

[Dilandu]

A British battleship modernised with 3"/70s, as actually studied, would have had four channels of 3"/70 on each beam, it also would have had EW systems and would have been covered by similarly armed and equipped destroyers, such a formation would have had a reasonable chance against a salvo of first generation anti-ship missiles.

So essentially they would need a whole surface action group, covered by carrier aviation, just for the dubious idea of implementing battleship against Indonesia. And even in such scenario the best is "reasonable chance" - which is not much, considering that Indonesian coastlines are very favorable for the fast attack crafts, and missile & torpedo attacks could be launched in great numbers and from different directions.

Not to mention that Indonesia actually have a pretty reasonable submarine and surface force (cruiser and a number of destroyers) of their own.

 

[Dilandu]

Our favourite enemies ( sorry Dilandu not the USSR)

None taken)

 

[Scott Kenny]

3-inch guns are quite useless against anti-ship missiles, especially launched in salvo. And the only defensive SAM that could be realistically implemented here would be 1-2 destroyers with Seaslug and maybe Sea Cat on battleship itself.

Disagree here, the US 3"/50s were seen as effective versus Kamikazes, which also means effective against first generation AShMs.

Yes, if one of those P15s got through the battleship would be a very hurting unit. But air defense versus Kamikazes and early AShMs had been worked out in 1945.

 

[Dilandu]

Disagree here, the US 3"/50s were seen as effective versus Kamikazes, which also means effective against first generation AShMs.

Even the first generation SSM's were significantly faster than propeller-driven kamikadze, and also significanly more durable.

Yes, if one of those P15s got through the battleship would be a very hurting unit. But air defense versus Kamikazes and early AShMs had been worked out in 1945.

Did it help Eliat or any of Pakistan Navy ships, sunk by P-15?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Did it help Eliat or any of Pakistan Navy ships, sunk by P-15?

None of them had USN level of AA guns, where even a destroyer had 6x 5"/38 DP and 6x 3"/50 (for the Gearing post-war fit, pre FRAM). The 3"/70s would effectively replace 5"/38s and have an absolutely ludicrous rate of fire, on the order of 90-100 rounds per minute (45-50 rounds per gun per minute).

The US Mitscher-class Destroyer Leaders (large destroyers) had 2x 5"/54 in single turrets and 2x 3"/70 twin turrets.

 

[Dilandu]

None of them had USN level of AA guns, where even a destroyer had 6x 5"/38 DP and 6x 3"/50 (for the Gearing post-war fit, pre FRAM). The 3"/70s would effectively replace 5"/38s and have an absolutely ludicrous rate of fire, on the order of 90-100 rounds per minute (45-50 rounds per gun per minute).

And despite that, USN considered ECM to be the backbone of anti-missile defense, not the artillery.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And despite that, USN considered ECM to be the backbone of anti-missile defense, not the artillery.

Well, yes. Better to trick the missile to miss you than have to shoot it down. Which is just reducing how many missiles you need to shoot down in the first place.

 

[Dilandu]

Well, yes. Better to trick the missile to miss you than have to shoot it down. Which is just reducing how many missiles you need to shoot down in the first place.

Okay, let's calculate. The efficient AA range of 3"/70 is about 11.000 meters (it could reach longer, of course, but against surface targets). The speed of P-15 "Termit" missile is about 300 meters per second. So the missile would stay in the 3-inch guns envelope for about 35 seconds.

While it is possible that 3-inch mount could destroy the incoming missile in 30 seconds, it clearly would not have time to target another one. So even re-armed battleship could reasonably hope to stop three missiles with four 3-inch mounts (the probability of interception is not 100%, and 3-inch/70 mounts have massive reliability problems). So essentially, three missile boats with two P-15 missiles each would make a clear saturation.

That's assuming that missiles would get detected in time, of course. The radar equipment of late 1950s wasn't exactly optimised to detect small, relatively low-altitude objects. P-15, being rocket powered, have a much smaller radar signature than jet fighter (simply due to lack of air intake). So basically the best chance battleship have to be warned is to detect the targeting radar of missile boats.

P.S. I should remind, that Eliat was relatively well-equipped in terms of radars and radar detectors. She carried "Bat Kol" emission detection station, that was supposed to warn about enemy radar emission. Problem was, this 1960s era electronics was too slow-acting due to being manually-operated, so the missile launches were actually detected only visually, by rocket booster flashes. Neither radar nor warning systems were of much use.

 

[Temeraire]

I honestly think that if Royal Navy have enough money for better carrier groups, they wouldn't need a battleship

Well the Yanks kept theirs so I don’t see the issue here

 

[Temeraire]

Our favourite enemies ( sorry Dilandu not the USSR) in France, Germany and Spain would not sit idly by and let this happen. Not to mention the USA which faced with a resurgent British Empire would be taking its own measures

I could definitely see the USA taking advantage of the situation of a resurgent British Empire and returning to isolationism.

If this happens then the French Navy probably stays the same as they would have to deal with the soviets on land.

Same with the West Germans

 

[Scott Kenny]

I could definitely see the USA taking advantage of the situation of a resurgent British Empire and returning to isolationism.

I honestly doubt that. The US had tried being isolationist twice and got dragged into European wars, TWICE, in the previous 30 years.

People were beyond DONE with getting dragged into yet another European war. The US was going to stay outgoing and involved (probably a little too involved, what with the OSS/CIA stuff).

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Even the first generation SSM's were significantly faster than propeller-driven kamikadze, and also significanly more durable.

Did it help Eliat or any of Pakistan Navy ships, sunk by P-15?

UK had UA-3 and Type 667 Cooky, not to mention even Sea Cat and 3"/70 cued by Type 992 and GDS 3 are going to do much better against a Termit than Eilat's wartime Bofors L60s.

 

[uk 75]

This thread has drifted a little into scenarios and wider stuff. I would like to get back to the simple (and for me much more fun) exercise of updating Vanguard and a King George battleship.
The first option which was looked at for both UK and French battleships was to add a carrier deck while retaining the forward guns.
This could either be used for helicopters and landing craft (as proposed for US battleships) or for fixed wing then VSTOL aircraft (again proposed for US ships).
The second option is to add new types of weapon. A pair of Seaslug launchers and four Seacats would help protect from air attack. A cruise missile like Regulus or Matador could be fitted aft.
The US looked at MRBMs being fitted amidships. A quad of Blue Streaks or easier Polaris might work.
I find it hard to see the ships surviving into the 80s but as this is playtime they have plenty of room to add Harpoon, Tomahawk and Phalanx. Seawolf takes up too much space as does Seadart. Cannister VLS versions might work.