Warsaw Pact Britain - naval strategy and other considerations

[Martes]

I'd expect the British Army is a distinctly third-string force, primarily for home defence and some expeditionary operations. The UK's value as an unsinkable aircraft carrier probably far outweighs however many divisions it can supply. The Army might well be equipped along Soviet lines to save resources for the Navy and Air Force.

You are, again, right, only expeditionary operations would, likely, become rather frequent. So the general outlook on the Army more or less matches the Falklands war deployment. But the list of operations would be very long - Africa, SE Asia, Central America. Ireland. Most of all - Ireland.

...I wonder if it would be possible to hold the Caribbean bases in '57. All, or at least some of them.

Exactly how the UK squares Warsaw Pact anti-imperialism with its remaining Empire is an interesting question. 'Communism with British characteristics' may look quite odd to everyone.

Exactly like the everybody else did - say one thing, do another "Belt and road" style infrastructure projects around the Commonwealth, that sort of thing.

And it's more like "Socialism with British characteristics", so it would appear less extreme from the beginning.

The dynamics of the Warsaw Pact with a second nuclear power pursuing an independent (but aligned) foreign policy would be very interesting. I don't think Moscow would be at all happy about it. But nor was Washington, at times.

But then Moscow would have less control over it, and there would be a question of China. Should be interesting indeed.

I fully expect both Napoleonic and 1812 war vibes to be resurrected by the way, because suddenly France and US are real adversaries.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Speaking of unusual naval helicopter designs, this one of Westland's from the 1970s may well be of interest:

 

[Martes]

Speaking of unusual naval helicopter designs, this one of Westland's from the 1970s may well be of interest:

And now I thought that after HS.1011 nothing can stun me aesthetically.

 

[Yellow Palace]

As a rule of a thumb, I considered that every item that had been imported from the US should be replaced by a Soviet equivalent, so Kamov initally simply replaced the Sea King. Mi-8/Mi-14 would probably also be imported, as something has to replace the Wessex.

Probably worth considering whether, without the US system, the UK might instead prefer a domestic option.

Helicopter-wise, the Mi-8/14 is more nearly a Sea King equivalent, though I could see it filling both the Puma and Sea King niches. The Ka-25/27 fits neatly into the Lynx niche, which the UK has covered.

It may well be that the only Kara-like ships would be British in this timeline.

If maritime doctrine is UK-led, then the principal differences in ship design are likely to be dictated by funding, rather than doctrine - because while the missions may differ, the way the UK thinks about them actually won't change all that much.

Conceptually, it's probably better to think not of evolving Project 1134B (for example) to resemble a UK ship, but rather a UK ship incorporating Soviet elements where appropriate. I'd actually expect Soviet ships to wind up looking more British than British ships looked Soviet.

 

[Martes]

First, you asked for Sea Dart.

​

Probably worth considering whether, without the US system, the UK might instead prefer a domestic option.

And that's one of the reasons I came here, in search for those options.

​

Conceptually, it's probably better to think not of evolving Project 1134B (for example) to resemble a UK ship, but rather a UK ship incorporating Soviet elements where appropriate. I'd actually expect Soviet ships to wind up looking more British than British ships looked Soviet.

My argument is that on the study level they are practically the same. I referenced this sketch above -

​

and if one looks carefully, the actual difference between this study and 1134A/B is extremely small. Same long flush-decked hull with raised bow, same superstructure composition, same large funnel, same missile placement.

The level of design convergence with Soviet 1134 series (Kresta, Kara) is astonishing. I don't say somebody copied, it's just the logic behind the arrangement was, apparently, very similar. Add second Sea Dart aft and an hangar, assume Exocets and Ikara are interchangeable, and you have a Kresta. Add above that a towed array, and a second Sea Wolf - you got Kara. And I am almost completely sure such variants were contemplated, but considered too expensive.

That was one of the plans that sparked the whole idea for me. The only real difference is gun placement, with turrets on the broadside, but I don't think it's absolutely impossible, especially due to how effective RBU is when two emplacements are pointed forward.

And we should remember that the IRL RN hulls are a product of long and painful budget cuts (Childs in The Age of Invincible quotes the Treasury several times with explicit demands for painful cuts for the Navy) that won't be applied in this case, so there won't be economy on hull size, on the number of anchors, number of mounted systems, etc.

Plus the game models are not an exact representation of 1134B, and neither of 1134A. On Kara model the bow is more flared, the anchors are positioned differently on both when comparing to the original, and with slight rounding of the cutwater both hulls have actually more British look than Soviet.

Shape of the radars is... debatable. But Top Sail looks so good.

The turrets are already British, and I can change the generic rail launchers to genuine Sea Dart (with some effort).

Helicopter-wise, the Mi-8/14 is more nearly a Sea King equivalent

Which reminds me I should make a kind of Mi-14 AEW.

As to the Lynx, I am looking at the Westland concepts above, and they almost confirm what I wanted to do with it.

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/1ijtox1/a_soviet_krivak_class_frigate_being_refueled_at

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/1ijtox1/a_soviet_krivak_class_frigate_being_refueled_at/

 

[Martes]

There was a similar shot of Kresta-2 taken from either Ark Royal or Victorious where she looked as if a part of the formation.

Like this (note, by the way, how different is the 3d model in the first post):

​

 

[Martes]

And we should remember that the IRL RN hulls are a product of long and painful budget cuts (Childs in The Age of Invincible quotes the Treasury several times with explicit demands for painful cuts for the Navy) that won't be applied in this case, so there won't be economy on hull size, on the number of anchors, number of mounted systems, etc.

To reflect this, both displacement of the hulls and number of mounted weapon systems should be multiplied by at least 1.5-2.

 

[Martes]

Tentatively, I began reworking the Type 24 (derived from 1155 anti-submarine ship) hull to fit the style of late 70-early 80's British studies and design practice (think Type 23, but substantially larger):

​

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That is a complex question, which somewhat depends on how you consider the Eurofighter.

As something like pan-bloc project, say UK-DDR-CSK-USSR, it would likely be something similar to Su-27.

Since the Navy retains quite extensive CATOBAR capability, there would be a question of replacing the Mig-23A at some point, and that would, probably, raise a heated discussion whether the large carriers should continue to carry conventional fighters or switch all aircraft carriers, large and small, to P.1154 and potentially P.1216 in some implementation or other.

RAF would prefer Su-27, I imagine, as to the Navy, they probably would end up with both.

I would imagine MiG-29K is much more likely to be exported, and is a straight MiG-23A replacement.

Jaguar, in turn, may be independently developed by France.

It gets killed by Dassault in favour of Mirage or Super Etendard or whatever in 95% of all timelines.

Since there would be, likely, a merge between the British side of the Concorde project and Tu-144, it should, I assume, lead to very close cooperation on the Tu-160 (RR engines?). And RAF is greedy. Even IRL, during the same 1966 review they boasted they could provide a global cover. They would want 160. The question, of course, whether they would get it, but I don't really see why not.

No, Soviet Union would never export Tu-160 any more than their ICBMs. Tu-22M, sure.

WarPac countries had some decent aviation firms, but their work was heavily circumscribed by the USSR as to what types of aircraft they were allowed to build. Not sure that Britain would be that more free here.

 

[Martes]

I would imagine MiG-29K is much more likely to be exported, and is a straight MiG-23A replacement.

Range issues may cause certain objections, but maybe with different engines it could work better?

It gets killed by Dassault in favour of Mirage or Super Etendard or whatever in 95% of all timelines.

Then let's say it was redundant.

No, Soviet Union would never export Tu-160 any more than their ICBMs. Tu-22M, sure.

Alas, you are very probably right on both points. But I bet there would be studies for possible local production of a bomber similar to Tu-160, but even in this timeline the Treasury would kill it. It has to kill something, after all.

Unless there is a mirror of a Trident agreement - could Britain pull of local-produced ICBM in 60-70s? Did they ever think of it?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ah, @Scott Kenny, almost forgot - do I replace the propellers with British ones on the submarines?

Very much so, the UK was the first big chaser of submarine silencing, even before the USN. And the screw is a major noise generator, or can be.

The Soviets stamped out their screw blades for each class, and bolted them onto the hub. Which meant that each class had a specific resonant tone that they emitted.

Machined screws make a unique tone for each individual screw.

In strategic terms, I suspect a Warsaw Pact-aligned UK has something like the following priorities:

• Nuclear deterrence against NATO, particularly the United States
• Protecting trade, particularly to ensure maintenance of food supplies
• Protection of the British Isles from attack or invasion
• Protection of the North-West Flank of the Warsaw Pact from seaborne and airborne attack
• Global power projection to promote national and Pact interests

Those are similar to OTL's strategic goals, but obviously impacted by the changed relationship with the USA and USSR. It's probably going to dictate developing an ability to shut down Western European naval and air bases, which will probably require something resembling Soviet long-range aviation. Buying in Soviet bombers makes sense here.

Needing to be able to reach the US with bombers means that the UK is looking at either Bears or Blackjacks. Or basing Russian Bears or Blackjacks on the UK, I guess.

Protecting the sea lanes against the USN will require serious capability. That land-based long-range aviation will form a component of it. So will submarines (and probably quite a lot of them) - it's open to speculation whether they'd use the VM-A plant as a baseline, similar to what was done with the S5W, or develop a domestic plant. If the former, the first British nuclear submarine probably has the OTL DREADNOUGHT front end with Project 627-derived machinery. Heavy anti-ship missiles to counter the American surface fleet will probably come from the USSR, though the UK might try to develop its own. I'm guessing big-deck carriers will show up too, partly for power projection and partly to take the offensive to the United States.

The S5W was bought to get a working plant into the UK subs as fast as possible, the homegrown PWR was struggling. I suspect that they'd do the same in this timeline, just with the Project 671/Victor plant. Not the 627/November plant, that's a 2-shaft setup and is functionally comparable to Nautilus and the other pre-Albacore designs.

As to numbers, I would not be surprised if the RN ended up with close to the same total number as the Red Navy did in our timeline.

I'd expect the British Army is a distinctly third-string force, primarily for home defence and some expeditionary operations. The UK's value as an unsinkable aircraft carrier probably far outweighs however many divisions it can supply. The Army might well be equipped along Soviet lines to save resources for the Navy and Air Force.

Agreed here.

Exactly how the UK squares Warsaw Pact anti-imperialism with its remaining Empire is an interesting question. 'Communism with British characteristics' may look quite odd to everyone. And the Northern Ireland situation could get very unpleasant indeed, in any number of ways.

The Warsaw Pact is the "expanded Russian Empire". As mentioned elsewhere, most of Russia is flat with no strategically significant terrain. There's 5 passes that each lead out onto those plains, so to be safe Russia needs to control those passes.

The British Empire adopting Socialism in the Soviet sense just makes the exporting of Communist Revolutions to the rest of the world a lot easier.

Northern Ireland would go beyond ugly, you'd have the US government actively supporting the IRA instead of mere wealthy individuals. We're talking Vietnam levels of ugly.

The dynamics of the Warsaw Pact with a second nuclear power pursuing an independent (but aligned) foreign policy would be very interesting. I don't think Moscow would be at all happy about it. But nor was Washington, at times.

Integrating the British nukes into the Soviet equivalent of SIOP would go a long way to improve Moscow's mood.

Speaking of unusual naval helicopter designs, this one of Westland's from the 1970s may well be of interest:

Supersonic rotors?

Aw, hell no! The Thunderscreech was bad enough with supersonic props. Supersonic rotors would deafen ground crews instantly, and horribly disorient the pilot.

Unless there is a mirror of a Trident agreement - could Britain pull of local-produced ICBM in 60-70s? Did they ever think of it?

The Trident agreement is UK warheads in US-produced rockets/launchers. Amusingly, UK trident crews require power converters. The missile compartment has US-standard 120VAC outlets in it, while the forward compartment and engine room have UK-standard 220V.

I'd assume that this timeline's agreement is similar, and so the missiles would be the R-27 SLBMs from the Yankee-class.

 

[Martes]

WarPac countries had some decent aviation firms, but their work was heavily circumscribed by the USSR as to what types of aircraft they were allowed to build. Not sure that Britain would be that more free here.

Britain would have the advantage of coming over as a nuclear power in own right and would apparently get more political leeway. Nobody would want to spoil a present of this scale. So the primary limitation would be probably budget, that is certainly much more military oriented, but not completely unlimited.

Very much so, the UK was the first big chaser of submarine silencing

I thought so, but had to make sure. I will install British screws on the submarines, then.

As to numbers, I would not be surprised if the RN ended up with close to the same total number as the Red Navy did in our timeline.

Agreed

The British Empire adopting Socialism in the Soviet sense just makes the exporting of Communist Revolutions to the rest of the world a lot easier.

And with US and France actively opposing this, it would be a hell of a Great Game all over Africa, SE Asia and Central America. Irish mercenaries, British commandos, East German advisors, and all others, all chasing each other over the tropics. Wonder which side Hoare will pick.

Northern Ireland would go beyond ugly, you'd have the US government actively supporting the IRA instead of mere wealthy individuals. We're talking Vietnam levels of ugly.

Yes, exactly that. It is a techno-military dystopia, after all.

Integrating the British nukes into the Soviet equivalent of SIOP would go a long way to improve Moscow's mood.

And, yes, this. Also, covering all the overseas operations. As long as Britain would not go into dictating the overall bloc policy, they should get along fine.

Supersonic rotors?

Aw, hell no! The Thunderscreech was bad enough with supersonic props. Supersonic rotors would deafen ground crews instantly, and horribly disorient the pilot.

I did not say consider supersonic rotors, and probably not that sleek design, but it's a proof they considered coaxial for high-speed helicopters even IRL.

I'd assume that this timeline's agreement is similar, and so the missiles would be the R-27 SLBMs from the Yankee-class.

I also think it is possible.

It could be a bit stretching the scope, but what about space cooperation? Any chance for HOTOL to be built, for example?

 

[Scott Kenny]

It could be a bit stretching the scope, but what about space cooperation? Any chance for HOTOL to be built, for example?

I mean, space exploration was another field in The Great Game, so it's possible that they'd cooperate. Having access to UK possessions closer to the Equator to launch from would be much appreciated by the Soviets.

I suspect that they'd try to develop HOTOL, but I also think the entire SSTO CONOPS is fundamentally flawed as long as you're using chemical propulsion.

 

[Yellow Palace]

To reflect this, both displacement of the hulls and number of mounted weapon systems should be multiplied by at least 1.5-2.

I'm not so sure - the RN was always concerned with getting numbers, and always fell short. While they might allow a slight increase in size and capability, I suspect they'd stick with comparatively small, numerous ships for the most part.

If you compare the UK's Cold War era ships to the US's low-end combatants, they're actually pretty comparable in most categories. What's missing is the high-end ones - the County class DLGs and the FARRAGUT/COONTZ class DLGs are very nearly equivalent, but the UK immediately abandoned that line of development while in the USN it lead to larger and more capable ships.

Needing to be able to reach the US with bombers means that the UK is looking at either Bears or Blackjacks. Or basing Russian Bears or Blackjacks on the UK, I guess.

If we're looking at a PoD circa 1957, the UK was already looking to move towards seaborne ballistic missiles on survivability grounds. Forward basing for Soviet long-range bombers (hey, there's some really nice bases newly available near Oxford) would suit both powers in the interim.

The S5W was bought to get a working plant into the UK subs as fast as possible, the homegrown PWR was struggling. I suspect that they'd do the same in this timeline, just with the Project 671/Victor plant. Not the 627/November plant, that's a 2-shaft setup and is functionally comparable to Nautilus and the other pre-Albacore designs.

A UK-only plant was expected to be a year or two later. The VM-4 plant wasn't available to the Soviets until five years later.

A Project 627/Dreadnought crossover would be distinctly backwards because of the twin-shaft setup. But if waiting for a single-shaft plant is preferable, it'd be quicker to do it domestically.

And that's assuming that the USSR was willing to export its naval nuclear reactors at all, which isn't a given.

WarPac countries had some decent aviation firms, but their work was heavily circumscribed by the USSR as to what types of aircraft they were allowed to build. Not sure that Britain would be that more free here.

I think the key consideration here is that in 1960, the UK's economy was half the size of the USSR's, and it would be (presumably) entering into a voluntary relationship of near-equals. To say nothing of the UK entering that relationship with an independent nuclear capability.

That means the ability of the USSR to dictate what the UK can and can't do would be much more limited than (say) Poland or Romania. It may choose to align with the USSR - but it's also perfectly capable of taking its toys and playing on its own if it chooses.

Northern Ireland would go beyond ugly, you'd have the US government actively supporting the IRA instead of mere wealthy individuals. We're talking Vietnam levels of ugly.

Oh yes. But on top of that, the socialist UK may line up more closely with the socialist elements of the Irish republican movement. Or (drawing parallels to Vietnam and Israel) the UK may decide that the only secure Northern Ireland is one with British boots on both sides of the border. Which would be spectacularly awful, of course.

Or they could use economic and military pressure to say 'We think a united Ireland is a great idea - it'll be socialist, of course?' and wind up building its own equivalent to the Warsaw Pact. Which I'm sure the people of Ireland would gladly accept...

As long as Britain would not go into dictating the overall bloc policy, they should get along fine.

I suspect Britain would expect to have its own freedom of action - the political and diplomatic dimension might look more like France's relationship to the US.

 

[Martes]

I'm not so sure - the RN was always concerned with getting numbers, and always fell short. While they might allow a slight increase in size and capability, I suspect they'd stick with comparatively small, numerous ships for the most part.

If you compare the UK's Cold War era ships to the US's low-end combatants, they're actually pretty comparable in most categories. What's missing is the high-end ones - the County class DLGs and the FARRAGUT/COONTZ class DLGs are very nearly equivalent, but the UK immediately abandoned that line of development while in the USN it lead to larger and more capable ships.

Looking at studies listed in Brown, and especially reading the story of Type 42 and Type 22 design IRL, I observe a pattern, where there is a base design with more or less feasible number of capabilities, and then they are cut, and cut, and cut again.

The only exception to this is the Type 43, but that one was cancelled when it grew to cruiser dimensions, and in one variant or other would fit this timeline quite naturally.

Both designs (42 and 22) required lengthening and widening in order to ensure some seakeeping, because originally it was rather abysmal for both of them, but required so that the hull would fit into dimensions/tonnage constraints. None of those considerations apply here.

Additionally, ITTL there is a requirement for the ships to be able to operate on global scale, and not only in home waters, to form escort groups for (anti)colonial carriers, so I think the minimal baseline for serious combatant is the County/Type 82, with potential split to anti-submarine, anti-surface and anti-air specializations, and that's 6-8kt hulls for destroyers and 30-40kt for escort cruisers and light carriers.

This does not exclude small frigates (like Type 12) from order of battle, because there is enough work for everybody, but you ever have to keep in mind their survivability, which means their role is explicitly secondary, like the corvettes nowadays.

From simulation standpoint, I have observed (in various environments, from old Jane's Fleet Command to Command: Modern Operations and recently in Sea Power) that in order to beat off any feasible sustained attack on a task group (say 32 harpoons, from a 4-ship group, for example, and that's really an easy one), you need at the very least 4 ships with a total of 4 Sea Dart and 24 (!) SA-N-9/Sea Wolf equivalent launchers able to operate simultaneously. It all boils down to number of launchers and fire control radar channels. Air support may ease things a little, but only in terms of detection and preparation, so if you haven't found and got to the enemy formation before they launch, and you don't have the AA missile numbers, you are in a very deep trouble.

 

[Martes]

If we're looking at a PoD circa 1957, the UK was already looking to move towards seaborne ballistic missiles on survivability grounds. Forward basing for Soviet long-range bombers (hey, there's some really nice bases newly available near Oxford) would suit both powers in the interim.

Basing of the Soviet bombers goes without saying, it's a direct mirror of US deployment.

I think the key consideration here is that in 1960, the UK's economy was half the size of the USSR's, and it would be (presumably) entering into a voluntary relationship of near-equals. To say nothing of the UK entering that relationship with an independent nuclear capability.

That means the ability of the USSR to dictate what the UK can and can't do would be much more limited than (say) Poland or Romania. It may choose to align with the USSR - but it's also perfectly capable of taking its toys and playing on its own if it chooses.

Exactly. And additional political considerations I outlined above - a kind of ally Moscow could get in 60s UK is not something it would want to spook off.

Oh yes. But on top of that, the socialist UK may line up more closely with the socialist elements of the Irish republican movement. Or (drawing parallels to Vietnam and Israel) the UK may decide that the only secure Northern Ireland is one with British boots on both sides of the border. Which would be spectacularly awful, of course.

I used the term of local Afghanistan to describe this initially.
And "spectacularly awful" is exactly what I think is needed to underscore the dystopian side of the timeline.

Or they could use economic and military pressure to say 'We think a united Ireland is a great idea - it'll be socialist, of course?' and wind up building its own equivalent to the Warsaw Pact. Which I'm sure the people of Ireland would gladly accept...

Ahahaha
But I am almost sure the Irish will adopt any ideology as long as it's anti-British in this period, and neither France or the US would drop the place easily.

I suspect Britain would expect to have its own freedom of action - the political and diplomatic dimension might look more like France's relationship to the US.

Very much yes.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Supersonic rotors?

Aw, hell no! The Thunderscreech was bad enough with supersonic props. Supersonic rotors would deafen ground crews instantly, and horribly disorient the pilot.

Come to the Dark Side...

Seriously though, the Westland design shouldn't have the same issues as the Thunderscreech, given the difference in design/size of the rotors from the Thunderscreech's constant-speed propeller.

 

[Martes]

Seriously though, the Westland design shouldn't have the same issues as the Thunderscreech, given the difference in design/size of the rotors from the Thunderscreech's constant-speed propeller.

The author of the article in the linked thread wrote that some noise issues may be present, but he - apparently - didn't consider them totally critical.

The obvious potential issues would be external noise and high power
requirements. But, in principle, it ought to work.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/westland-helicopter-projects.15179/post-340963

 

[Scott Kenny]

Seriously though, the Westland design shouldn't have the same issues as the Thunderscreech, given the difference in design/size of the rotors from the Thunderscreech's constant-speed propeller.

A rotor is a giant constant-speed prop.

The author of the article in the linked thread wrote that some noise issues may be present, but he - apparently - didn't consider them totally critical.

The obvious potential issues would be external noise and high power
requirements. But, in principle, it ought to work.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/westland-helicopter-projects.15179/post-340963

I think the author is grossly underestimating the noise level that's going to happen. Being 12 feet or so from a sonic boom that happens at about 300 times a second minute is not going to be pleasant.

 

[Martes]

I think the author is grossly underestimating the noise level that's going to happen. Being 12 feet or so from a sonic boom that happens at about 300 times a second is not going to be pleasant.

He wasn't a potential user.

But anyway, in our context I just see it as a potential justification for a coaxial Lynx variant. Nothing that fancy.

 

[Martes]

Being 12 feet or so from a sonic boom that happens at about 300 times a second

As a late thought, could it be possible that at low-speed, landings and takeoffs the rotors could operate on subsonic speeds, and only when going for cruiser flight accelerate to super-sonic?

so I think the minimal baseline for serious combatant is the County/Type 82, with potential split to anti-submarine, anti-surface and anti-air specializations, and that's 6-8kt hulls for destroyers

Actually, it's not solely my thinking.
Brown writes, that absent budget and manpower limitations (Ch. 7, intro to Type 19 studies) the Admiralty would prefer -

In the mid-1960s the Admiralty hoped to retain an escort force of some ninety destroyers and frigates, which led to a requirement for four new ships each year, each with a 21-year life. Ideally, all should deploy Sea Dart and Ikara, implying ships similar to the Type 82 (Bristol).


And there is this thread with very interesting configurations:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/early-cf-299-destroyer-proposals-previously-mistaken-for-rn-type-19-frigate.5525/

 

[Scott Kenny]

Ah, oops. realized I really goofed on the rotor speed.

300 rpm and two blades, so 10 beats per second. Adding the counter-rotating rotor set would increase that to 20 beats per second. Right at the bottom of human hearing ability. Although with the two sonic booms going opposite directions you'd get some weird pressure wiggles as they interfered with each other.

 

[Martes]

Ah, oops. realized I really goofed on the rotor speed.

And I haven't bothered to check.

But it may be also 3 blades, as on the first image, if it changes anything.

But generally it makes the whole thing more feasible, right?

 

[Martes]

And there is this thread with very interesting configurations:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...viously-mistaken-for-rn-type-19-frigate.5525/

This one being particularly curious:

​

with a combined launcher for Sea Dart and Ikara.

 

[Martes]

The Ka-25/27 fits neatly into the Lynx niche, which the UK has covered.

There appears to be a certain misconception - both here and on Wiki. I checked the specifications and Ka-27 is a direct competitor of the Sea King, being even heavier (12t max takeoff weight vs 10t) and having 1 more ton of payload weight (4t vs 3t). Lynx is twice as lighter (max takeoff 5.3t with 1.5t payload).

 

[Scott Kenny]

But it may be also 3 blades, as on the first image, if it changes anything.

But generally it makes the whole thing more feasible, right?

Raises the boom frequency.

As to feasibility for subsonic rotors, two-bladed teetering rotors are significantly simpler than rotors with more blades. The hubs need fewer hinges built into them, because as one blade wants to lag behind the mast the blade on the opposite side wants to lead. IIRC this is why the Apache tail rotor is a stacked pair of two-bladed rotors instead of a single 4-bladed rotor.

 

[TsrJoe]

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Sketch-of-the-Hybrid-Compound-Helicopter-HCH-Model_fig6_295403078/amp

RN. Lynx pestering Soviet Kara Class cruiser

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/1irdhzm/gromkiy_916_hms_glasgow_d88_uss_caron_dd970

View: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/1irdhzm/gromkiy_916_hms_glasgow_d88_uss_caron_dd970/


Harassment by the USN!

 

[Yellow Palace]

Thinking about it: I wonder if the nuclear weapons facilities in northern France might be located elsewhere in this timeline. If the UK is a potential adversary, Île Longue looks entirely too easy to attack and/or bottle up - basing the FOST further south on the Bay of Biscay (perhaps at La Rochelle?) would give more defensive depth while still having good access to deep water. Likewise, La Hague might not be the best site for plutonium production - a coastal site somewhere in Aquitaine might be preferable.

 

[Martes]

I've been messing around with the models -

the Type 24 is taking shape - I completely replaced the hull with an enlarged version of the IRL Type 23 (which matches even the forecastle curve). I suppose it should be already quite difficult to recognize the original.

​

And thought what can be done with Kara. Her long, (relatively) low, flush-decked hull - although it does match many of real British concept studies - looks very distinct, but looking at her very extensive superstructure, I decided to try and give her a Bristol treatment - and simply enclose the lower part of it with the outer hull, leaving the original sheer line as a knuckle:

​

There are some issues that should be ironed out here - whether to extend the enclosure until the flight deck, or how to ensure firing of RPK mounts (and whether to leave them at all, or replace with something else, like accelerated development of SS-N-16), but I seem to, again, like what I see.

 

[Martes]

Thinking about it: I wonder if the nuclear weapons facilities in northern France might be located elsewhere in this timeline. If the UK is a potential adversary, Île Longue looks entirely too easy to attack and/or bottle up - basing the FOST further south on the Bay of Biscay (perhaps at La Rochelle?) would give more defensive depth while still having good access to deep water. Likewise, La Hague might not be the best site for plutonium production - a coastal site somewhere in Aquitaine might be preferable.

It is an extremely good point, and a many thanks for mentioning it.

There would be, I also suppose, a certain impact on both French SSBN program and their carrier fleet.

And both, Britain and France, would have to dust off the blockade/counter-blockade plans from 1810

 

[Martes]

A quick test on the Bristolized Kara:

​

Everything else aside, this certainly improved her seakeeping.

 

[Martes]

Now I have serious doubts about the Kresta-2 conversion.

I thought her to mirror the development of the Type 42, a kind of cut-price Sea Dart ship.

And there is this thread with very interesting configurations:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...viously-mistaken-for-rn-type-19-frigate.5525/

In line with those studies, I enclosed the superstructure, replaced the funnel (there would be no need for a radar on the funnel) but left the forecastle cut out, only increasing the flaring of the deck -

​

Armament - two Sea Dart launchers, two RPK, two guns, 4 ASW mortars. RBU is a wonder, mind, because it can shoot torpedoes.
No VDS and no short-range AA missiles.

However, all my simulations show that lack of anything remotely like Sea Wolf/SA-N-4/SA-N-9 is deadly when dealing with sea-skimming missiles. Basically, you can't operate this ship (and expect her to survive) without a short-range-AA equipped frigate, just like they had to team Type 22 with Type 42 during Falklands.

One option is replace one of the Sea Dart launchers with a short-range AA array.




But comparing both projects, the question is whether the smaller escort - with all it's deficiencies - is needed at all, or it would be more convenient to build more slightly larger, but uniform ships, or make an additional version of the Type 84/Kara replacing the Sea Dart with extensive short range AA missile arrays as dedicated close escort.

 

[Yellow Palace]

But comparing both projects, the question is whether the smaller escort - with all it's deficiencies - is needed at all, or it would be more convenient to build more slightly larger, but uniform ships, or make an additional version of the Type 84/Kara replacing the Sea Dart with extensive short range AA missile arrays as dedicated close escort.

Remember RN logic always was, and still is, that a ship can only be in one place, whilst two ships can be in two places.

If you're shooting for a Type 42 equivalent, there were very serious proposals in OTL to add Sea Wolf abreast the funnel, where you seem to have provision for something. If those are the guns, I'd suggest one on the centreline forward is much more in line with RN thinking.

 

[Martes]

In terms of IRL what I think is dispensing with the Type 42 with in favour of building more Bristols, possibly dividing the class in two variants (long range AA + short range AA as it is now and all-short-range-AA, but literally packed with it).

All-short-range-AA, where both Sea Dart launchers are replaced with SA-N-9 revolving containers (24x8, a total of 192 missiles - 16 forward, 6 aft, 2 abreast the main mast replacing old SA-N-4 launchers) may look like this:



And, of course, there may be an mixed variant, where the one of the Sea Dart launchers is replaced with the containers, and the other is retained.

The question is whether a separate and smaller hull, slightly cheaper but clearly inferior in capabilities, is really required absent serious budget constraints.

If those are the guns, I'd suggest one on the centreline forward is much more in line with RN thinking.

Concerning the gun forward. I know it should be there, but the RN did not have RBU-6000 IRL. There is an immense practical advantage to having two of them pointing forward, because if you have an incoming torpedo, and picking up speed, the sonar is able to detect the torpedo only in the forward sector, and if one salvo is fired and missed you have a second one immediately ready without the need to maneuver the ship while the first launcher reloads.

It is possible to move them closer to the superstructure, and free the place for the gun, like the Indian designers did, but that may conflict with the large RPK launchers (proximity to the launch blast).

​

 

[Scott Kenny]

Now I have serious doubts about the Kresta-2 conversion.

I thought her to mirror the development of the Type 42, a kind of cut-price Sea Dart ship.




In line with those studies, I enclosed the superstructure, replaced the funnel (there would be no need for a radar on the funnel) but left the forecastle cut out, only increasing the flaring of the deck -

I don't think the UK would agree with cutting the forecastle down. And IIRC we were assuming that the USSR would have the UK as their High Seas Fleet specialist.

Armament - two Sea Dart launchers, two RPK, two guns, 4 ASW mortars. RBU is a wonder, mind, because it can shoot torpedoes.

No VDS and no short-range AA missiles.

However, all my simulations show that lack of anything remotely like Sea Wolf/SA-N-4/SA-N-9 is deadly when dealing with sea-skimming missiles. Basically, you can't operate this ship (and expect her to survive) without a short-range-AA equipped frigate, just like they had to team Type 22 with Type 42 during Falklands.

One option is replace one of the Sea Dart launchers with a short-range AA array.

I think it'd be better to find a way to keep both Sea Darts and add a pair of Sea Wolf/SA-N-9 launchers. Say, abeam the funnel?

But comparing both projects, the question is whether the smaller escort - with all it's deficiencies - is needed at all, or it would be more convenient to build more slightly larger, but uniform ships, or make an additional version of the Type 84/Kara replacing the Sea Dart with extensive short range AA missile arrays as dedicated close escort.

I'd definitely lean more towards every ship having both long-range and short-range AA. The US Albany-class did the same thing. (I'm ignoring the CLGs because they were not very successful. Too small a hull for all the systems!)

Remember RN logic always was, and still is, that a ship can only be in one place, whilst two ships can be in two places.

And two ships each with both long-range and short-range AA are better than one ship with pure long-range AA and another ship with pure short-range AA. Even if you have to sacrifice half the long-range AA to make space for the ship to have both.

 

[Martes]

If you're shooting for a Type 42 equivalent, there were very serious proposals in OTL to add Sea Wolf abreast the funnel, where you seem to have provision for something.

Those were for guns and torpedo tubes.

IF I am going to continue with this additional hull, I think it may be like this:

RBU moved to conning tower
Forward Sea Dart replaced by SA-N-9 containers
Single gun at RBU position forward
Aft Sea Dart remains in place
(optional) Additional SA-N-9 go abeam the funnel, instead of torpedoes
Broadside trackers/illuminators for SA-N-9 in place of gun turrets

Kind of workable.

Still, a very similar conversion can be done to the larger hull (although I in this case I would retain the forward Sea Dart and replace the aft one, leaving the guns on the broadside).

I don't think the UK would agree with cutting the forecastle down. And IIRC we were assuming that the USSR would have the UK as their High Seas Fleet specialist.

I totally agree, but those bloody concepts are all like that. And Type 22 had a very awkward cut of the forecastle, where the Exocets were placed.

Of course, deep down I would want a justification to stay with the large hull and make two versions of it with different sets of armament. Because even in the totally original configuration she has both long and short range AA systems, and why bother with trying to cut something at all, when it's possible to just build a larger series of them?

Or at least some argument for the smaller one, besides the cost, which is not that effective, especially if we try to stuff all the same systems into less space. Even if I install a VDS on the smaller one, it would still remain more narrow, more cramped and would have less endurance.

 

[Martes]

IF I am going to continue with this additional hull, I think it may be like this:

RBU moved to conning tower
Forward Sea Dart replaced by SA-N-9 containers
Single gun at RBU position forward
Aft Sea Dart remains in place
(optional) Additional SA-N-9 go abeam the funnel, instead of torpedoes
Broadside trackers/illuminators for SA-N-9 in place of gun turrets

Another option is to use shortened Kara/T84 hull, keeping the breadth, remove both RPK and VDS, otherwise armed as above. Purely air defense ship, minimal ASW capability (helicopter+hull sonar+RBU only).
That will look closer to real Type 42, and it seems more viable to me, compact and economical, but still - is there any reason to prefer it to the original?

 

[Yellow Palace]

@RP1 drew up a Royal Navy Kresta-inspired ship quite a few years ago, which may be of interest to you:

Ship Profiles

Gallery page of Shipbucket profiles

rp-one.net