Does kinda make me wonder how fast a coaxial Lynx would be, once fitted with BERP tips... tail rotor is what, 10% of installed power?A very preliminary attempt into coaxial Lynx:
This is straightforwardly a fuselage of Lynx I found in the mod database for the game with with Ka-27 tail attached, and I can configure it to use the same double rotor setup. Since it's not that supersonic-rotor crazy-sleek Wessex design that was mentioned a couple of pages back (which would require making a totally new model) it shouldn't be too complex.
Sometimes it's the small details that tells you which nation owns the item. For submarines, it's sails.It may look like an obsession (which it is, in a sense), but I find again and again that the shape and placement of the anchors have unproportional impact on the overall perception of a ship for such minor detail.
Hm. Wiki - and I am in no way expert on helicopters, so all I can do is a quick search around - says:Does kinda make me wonder how fast a coaxial Lynx would be, once fitted with BERP tips... tail rotor is what, 10% of installed power?
Or the position of the forward planes. And all this decides the overall form of the ship that you ultimately see.Sometimes it's the small details that tells you which nation owns the item. For submarines, it's sails.
I think Royal Anne would be the most likely if the DDR named it.A new Royal Yacht (presented to the Queen by the People and Party of DDR):
View attachment 766279
(the Seefa 750 class liner model is present in the game, I just repainted it accordingly)
How should I call her, I wonder. Britannia is, obviously, already built in this timeline, and the question is how should a second yacht be properly named. I circle around Caledonia, Hibernia or Royal Anne, but still not completely sure.
I think Royal Anne would be the most likely if the DDR named it.
"Hapsburg" would be right out.
Oh, I do like Royal Charlotte!All navy ship names are decided by the Queen personally, so DDR wouldn't bother with a name.
Royal Anne is for Princess Royal, which is one of the possible names for a yacht.
But I did consider "Hannover" (in a somewhat dubious gesture to Germany) or Royal Charlotte for Victoria's grandmother, who was also a German princess.
You do realize the amount of jokes around this and Prince Charles that would go round and round for years?Oh, I do like Royal Charlotte!
You say that like it's a bad thing!You do realize the amount of jokes around this and Prince Charles that would go round and round for years?![]()
Only that it's unlikely to pass any serious political consideration, precisely because of the riskYou say that like it's a bad thing!
That's also quite large - I literally thought about Gannet revival with new electronics, but they all require arresting gear. That takes space on the deck and prevents normal operation of the Harriers.Something along the lines of the Yakovlev Yak-44E, perhaps?
The Brits need to learn that just because a good name can have jokes made off of it doesn't make it a bad name.Only that it's unlikely to pass any serious political consideration, precisely because of the risk![]()
Ordinarily I'd say CL-84, but that's on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain now. But I'd still say Tilt-wing aircraft over helicopter AEW. You just can't get a helicopter high enough to get outside the range of antiship missiles.On a more serious note. I have been thinking about Hermes successor - and there is this issue of AEW aircraft. Basically, it requires to fit a catapult, angled deck and arresting gear only to facilitate operations with a single AEW aircraft that takes a lot of space and is very unwieldy for this size of a ship (or develop a new one, and smaller). Is it worth it at all? Yes, AEW helicopter has it's shortcomings, but they are compact and don't affect the carrier configuration to this extent. And, of course, there is a crazy option to develop a VSTOL AEW on the base of Harrier engine.
The aforementioned SCAT concept may have some potential here (practically build it around the Pegasus - although it looks like a Dune ornithopter, totally unearthly craft), but the location of the radar dish looks a bit unsympathetic to the radar wellbeing.I don't think you could make an AEW airframe VTOL with a single Pegasus, you'd have to bust out the BS100 or other "super-Pegasus" engine in the 35,000-50,000lb thrust range.
And suddenly there would be US ships with those large tubes of anti-ship missile containers, Soviet-style?That statement about AEW made me realize that with the UK going Red we'd probably see much larger USN antiship missiles in service, something with a 1000-1500lb shaped charge in it. Not a "wimpy" 500lb warhead like Harpoon.
Some kind of Talos modification? Or it's too small?Not entirely sure what to do in the 1960s. A Hound Dog could carry the warhead (they normally carried a 1700lb nuke), but that's absurdly too much missile for the job.
There's a surprising level of convergence between the supersonic anti-ship version of the UGM-89 Advanced Cruised Missile and the P-700 Granit, though that was expected to enter service in 1979.Well, 1980s it'd be Tomahawk AShMs, but before then it'd be ... interesting. Maybe AGM-86 CALCMs with Harpoon seekers?
That's... solvable. Although this particular design seems to look better with a single mast, I think. Modern style, all that.Only one mast on the yacht? Shocking, one can't do proper ceremonial without three of them!
Navy? Not Air Force?US Navy operating strike wings of PB5Y Hustlers
The UK also put up some designs, with Hawker Siddeley/BAe Hatfield taking the lead. Pics attached.
Config 1 – 3 Pegasus (one in fuselage) with RCS + control fans
Config 2 – 2 RB.193 and 4 x XJ.99
Config 3 – 6 RB.202 lift fans, two of which pivoted for lift/cruise
Config 4 used 4 turboshafts to drive fan via gearbox, with two reverse mounted in booms
Ref AHS Paper:
UK V/STOL Transport Aircraft Concepts of the 20th Century
Michael J. Pryce
Michael J. Hirschberg
A Royal Yacht needs three masts, in order to fly the Royal Standard, the flag of the Lord High Admiral, and the Union Flag.That's... solvable. Although this particular design seems to look better with a single mast, I think. Modern style, all that.
You could (and both services would) argue the case. I just want to see supersonic bombers in US Navy white-over-blue colours!Navy? Not Air Force?
No, more likely the US would keep making or converting real cruisers, so as to have Talos available for shorter-range AShM in addition to heavy SAM use. So all the old Baltimore-class cruisers and maybe earlier cruisers would get converted to Albany-class. Maybe even re-convert the Boston-class to Albany-class spec so they lose the forward 8" guns entirely, or maybe just rebuild the aft end for Talos like the Galveston-class. I would not go earlier than the 4 survivors of the Astoria/New Orleans class for cruisers to convert into Talos ships, and even they'd probably be really tight.And suddenly there would be US ships with those large tubes of anti-ship missile containers, Soviet-style?![]()
USAF's self-professed mission is dropping nukes on the Soviets.Navy? Not Air Force?
Since the 1980s maritime strike (including aerial minelaying) has been an official secondary mission of the USAF, and in fairness during that decade they did train fairly seriously for that, mainly with B-52, B-1, and even A-10 (primarily in the form of the ANG in that case) squadrons. However, after the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s, the USAF leadership increasingly ignored their legislated responsibilities in that regard. There have been a few signs of life recently, but more along the lines of waving a (very) rusty saber for the most part.USAF's self-professed mission is dropping nukes on the Soviets.
Any antiship work is for the Navy.
And before that? 60s-70s?Since the 1980s maritime strike (including aerial minelaying) has been an official secondary mission of the USAF
Especially with substantial carrier fleet.It'd also end up in an interesting bit of internal politics. Pacific Fleet is the bigger, more important fleet in our timeline, but with a huge RedUKRN Atlantic Fleet would end up the more important role in the USN.
Worse than that. Every RN platform that NATO loses needs to be replaced, then countered. So (big handfuls) there's a deficiency of 140ish escorts, 40ish submarines, and 6-10 carriers, before adding in any expansion.With RedUKRN on the other side (and some 5x larger), the USN would also need to have a roughly equal-sized enlargement(!).
It's technically been a shared mission of the USAF and USN since 1947. It never really came up because the assumption was that the USN would deal with ships at sea - using submarines and carrier aviation - well before they got close to the United States.And before that? 60s-70s?
The keyword here is "large". Although config 4 looks like something more compact, but the general question is whether a radar + pegasus + fuel + cockpit can be packaged into roughly 1.5 Harrier size or it is all in vain.Regarding a large Peagus engined VTOL
Okay, I wasn't sure if you wanted to include that.And yes, it is one of the factors I wanted to discuss, because US (and USN in particular) would also look very differently in those circumstances.
Yes but no. As a ramjet, Talos would not be anywhere near as fast or as long ranged if flying down low.I suppose, if a real need arises, Talos can also be made in sea-skimming variant with active/radar homing seeker?
Okay, so the expansion numbers would be ~6x the size of the RN our timeline? 1x to replace what was lost, then countering 1:1.Worse than that. Every RN platform that NATO loses needs to be replaced, then countered. So (big handfuls) there's a deficiency of 140ish escorts, 40ish submarines, and 6-10 carriers, before adding in any expansion.
Exactly. So the USN would likely own the antiship mission, even if it meant using large "patrol bombers" like Hustler or P6M Seamaster.It's technically been a shared mission of the USAF and USN since 1947. It never really came up because the assumption was that the USN would deal with ships at sea - using submarines and carrier aviation - well before they got close to the United States.
And that's my question. A Harrier is only ~12k-14klbs empty, ~20klbs vertical MTOW. You'd need an AEW plane that is no more than ~18klbs empty to fly on a single dry BS100, and that doesn't leave much room for fuel.The keyword here is "large". Although config 4 looks like something more compact, but the general question is whether a radar + pegasus + fuel + cockpit can be packaged into roughly 1.5 Harrier size or it is all in vain.
If you go with the 5x expansion for the RN, then something like that. Though not necessarily all with the USN – I'd expect that other NATO countries would also respond.Okay, so the expansion numbers would be ~6x the size of the RN our timeline? 1x to replace what was lost, then countering 1:1.
It was clear pre-WW2, when the Army Air Force handled continental defence with landplanes like the B-17 and Ventura while the Navy had seaplanes to follow the fleet. But it became apparent during WW2 that (a) maritime air works better in the Navy, and (b) long range landplanes work really well in the maritime environment.Exactly. So the USN would likely own the antiship mission, even if it meant using large "patrol bombers" like Hustler or P6M Seamaster.
I'd fully expect that. Remember the exercises where the USN did mirror image strikes against Petropavlovsk – and, one assumes, elsewhere. Remember the legends of ARK ROYAL and the East Coast Rampage? At some point something like that is going to freak US leadership right the frick out.At least until the first time a major RedRN task force got close to the coast undetected. Then the USAF would demand more funding for their own MPA bombers.
The requirements are assumed to be identical to Harrier - ski-jump takeoff, vertical or rolling landing, maybe external fuel tanks. Make sure it can operate in exactly the same conditions. Kind of Harrier-based Gannet is exactly what I think about, if it is possible. If one can fly it off Invincible, it would be marvelous.Best bet IMO would be a major development effort on the BS100 to get it up to ~35klbs thrust dry (or higher), a ~30% increase over existing. And then building the rough equivalent of the unhappy offspring of a Gannet AEW and a Harrier. Yes, a Gannet AEW was only 25klbs MTOW, but a vertical takeoff would require a lot more fuel.
Okay, I wasn't sure if you wanted to include that.
Keep it here, or launch a separate thread?
Yes, something like that. I also supposed the same flight profile as Soviet Granit or possible adaptation of the Sea Dart - high cruise, low terminal as a stopgap before a new missile is completed.Yes but no. As a ramjet, Talos would not be anywhere near as fast or as long ranged if flying down low.
I was assuming the existing high altitude cruise and terminal dive flight profile, likely using Talos ARMs. At least for the 1960s threat answer. 1970s might see the development of a Talos-sized sea skimmer, that still used the Talos launchers. And/or the use of Tomahawk AShMs in significant quantity, probably instead of Harpoons
The question of balance with France is interesting as well. Cross-channel ballistic missile batteries on both sides? Air defense? French nuclear strategy? Would the French army have actual invasion plans, considering a possibility of Soviet assault through West Germany? Would all this spur development of dedicated US/French SSGNs? To counter adversary carrier groups?Though not necessarily all with the USN – I'd expect that other NATO countries would also respond.
I'd still expect the USN to try to be that big alone. Belgium/Netherlands/Denmark have the problem of the North Sea being the British lake. France can at least put their major Navy units west of the Channel.If you go with the 5x expansion for the RN, then something like that. Though not necessarily all with the USN – I'd expect that other NATO countries would also respond.
Exactly my point. I'm guessing mid-late 1960s for the East Coast Rampage to happen, and USAF starting major patrol flights by 1975.I'd fully expect that. Remember the exercises where the USN did mirror image strikes against Petropavlovsk – and, one assumes, elsewhere. Remember the legends of ARK ROYAL and the East Coast Rampage? At some point something like that is going to freak US leadership right the frick out.
I think it's doable with a 35klbs dry engine, just so you can lift enough fuel to have a decent endurance. Crew of 3, just like the Gannet, because ideally you'd be using the same systems between both AEW planes. Put the radome between the cold nozzles. Much straighter wing than a Harrier, not more than "Boeing sweep" (~35deg?), and much longer with a fold halfway out. I'm assuming folded dimensions more or less equal to a Harrier, so the wing is much less anhedral by measure but still comes to ~3ft of the ground at the wingtip. Massive flaps and leading edge slats for high lift devices, again much like a modern airliner wing.The requirements are assumed to be identical to Harrier - ski-jump takeoff, vertical or rolling landing, maybe external fuel tanks. Make sure it can operate in exactly the same conditions. Kind of Harrier-based Gannet is exactly what I think about, if it is possible. If one can fly it off Invincible, it would be marvelous.
That's a possibility.Yes, something like that. I also supposed the same flight profile as Soviet Granit or possible adaptation of the Sea Dart - high cruise, low terminal as a stopgap before a new missile is completed.
I've long assumed that the "red line" for French nuclear use was when a Soviet Army Maneuver Group ended up ~30min from the French border. The exact time would be based on the process/reaction time of their nuclear forces to execute the orders, including weapon flight time. "Nuke this Maneuver Group before they set foot on French soil."The question of balance with France is interesting as well. Cross-channel ballistic missile batteries on both sides? Air defense? French nuclear strategy? Would the French army have actual invasion plans, considering a possibility of Soviet assault through West Germany? Would all this spur development of dedicated US/French SSGNs? To counter adversary carrier groups?
Crew of 3, just like the Gannet, because ideally you'd be using the same systems between both AEW planes.
Bet they would dust off the actual German engineers involved in planning, huh. Both sides, actually. Like the German scientists.I'd assume that the French coast would be nearly as fortified as when the Germans built it.
Right, Pilot plus 2 radar operators makes 3.Gannet had 2 observers that - if we believe wiki, again - had to interpret the radar signal before sending it down. Because the radar was very, very basic there.
Yes, if we can use a newer/better radar that'd be a huge improvement. But Gannets stuck around into the 1970s or early 1980s.What I thought was a direct port of Searchwater-like radar, that I hope did not require a human operator (but some of the weight may have to be reassigned to data processing system). Still, since we are talking about later kind of electronics it may take less space and less weight.
Likely.Bet they would dust off the actual German engineers involved in planning, huh. Both sides, actually. Like the German scientists.
If we got sneaky, we might be able to make this VSTOL AEW the sole AEW bird in the fleet, having it fly off the big deck carriers as well as the baby flattops.
On the flip side, making an acceptable AEW that happens to be VSTOL using an increased-dry-thrust BS100 et sim would appeal for logistical reasons.CVA-01 assumed a new dedicated AEW aircraft with new radar. The need for VSTOL AEW would emerge the moment the Escort Cruiser grows to 40 kiloton monster, and for this timeline that's practically at the same time as CVA-01 is finalized for updated WP requirements. I am just wary of the very realistic possibility they would copy the IRL approach - leave carrier AEW alone and improvise theSea King AEWKa-31 with Searchwater for the smaller ships including Hermes &c.
It would definitely help in terms of getting the engine output up to levels that would allow VTOL/ski jumping with a large amount of fuel onboard.On the upside, this moves VSTOL AEW question down the timeframe, with next iteration of development at late 70s-early 80s, which makes the available technology even more advanced.
On the flip side, making an acceptable AEW that happens to be VSTOL using an increased-dry-thrust BS100 et sim would appeal for logistical reasons.
One set of AEW radars to build. One set of radars to train on. One set of airframes to build in what, 3x the numbers? You're planning on two Escort Cruisers per big carrier, right?
SSGN needs only to enter it's missile launch range (which is hundreds of miles for any type of missile, TASM or Granit) and get a satellite signal with carrier group coordinates for a launch. They would probably get their patrol sectors and be prepositioned on a very early stage of any conflict situation.To hunt down a carrier, a sub (any ship, really) needs to significantly exceed the speed a carrier makes while doing flight ops. So we're probably talking 40-45 knots here, assuming a carrier does 25-30 knots. This gives the chasing ship the ability to get ahead of the carrier and get into position to attack. AShMs make this less critical, but you still need speed somewhat faster than a carrier to slowly close in.
Gotcha. So ~60 airframes or so if we do a combined design, else building ~24 fixed wing and ~48 helos. (You need more helos for AEW cover than you need fixed-wings)Yes, 3-4 carriers and 6-8 escort cruisers, and we are talking then about replacing the Gannets on Ark Royal, Eagle, (+ possibly retained Victorious), and Centaurs.
Makes sense for the big carriers, except for how few you're building.What I currently have for the carriers is a relatively large airframe with two jet engines (repainted Soviet P-42 that easily represents any parallel HS/BAE development), and it is shared between AEW and ASW aircraft. I am not sure both of them fit the Ark Royal even, let alone the smaller carriers, but has a large radar dish and all that.
I think it's possible, you just need a stupid high thrust engine to come together in time. I mean, Gannet is about the right weight, we're just needing a bigger engine to make liftoff with a full load of fuel.The question is, whether the VSTOL AEW (I, personally, very like the idea) is technically feasible on late 60s timeframe, and would it be considered worth the effort comparing to high-end-AEW-for-large-carriers & helicopters-for-the-rest solution. Especially that the missile defense is in any case limited to line-of-sight radar illumination. The helicopter can hover at around 10,000 feet (16,000 ceiling).
Ideally yes, but if the conflict kicks off suddenly like Pearl Harbor or Red Storm Rising the deployed boats need to get to their zones and so do the surge boats.SSGN needs only to enter it's missile launch range (which is hundreds of miles for any type of missile, TASM or Granit) and get a satellite signal with carrier group coordinates for a launch. They would probably get their patrol sectors and be prepositioned on a very early stage of any conflict situation.
Hannover, could work, because George I to Victoria were from the House of Hannover and George I to William IV were Kings of Hannover as well as whatever the UK was called at the time. However, its territory was in the BRD rather than the DDR.Habsburgs are Austro-Hungarian, nothing even close to Germany!
All navy ship names are decided by the Queen personally, so DDR wouldn't bother with a name.
Royal Anne is for Princess Royal, which is one of the possible names for a yacht.
But I did consider "Hannover" (in a somewhat dubious gesture to Germany) or Royal Charlotte for Victoria's grandmother, who was also a German princess.
In the end it would, probably, be the Caledonia. Because the larger of two yachts would be just right to sooth the Scottish ego![]()
More or less exactly how I thought about it. Hannover is good historically, but could seem like an overly political considering it's exact location (does DDR lay claim to it? Does the British Crown lay claim to it? Lots of questions, all unnecessary). Royal Anne as a default version of the eldest reigning Queen's daughter. Royal Victoria - creates an ambiguity between Victoria and both her mother and her daughter, hence I reverted to her grandmother, but that causes a conflict with the Prince of Wales which @Scott Kenny found very amusing and rightfully so. Caledonia in this way seems a good compromise, making the yacht related to the existing Britannia and geographically a good reference to IRL Hebridian Princess often chartered for the same role by the Queen. Hibernia could work as well, but that would be a magnet to Irish bomb attempts.Hannover, could work, because George I to Victoria were from the House of Hannover and George I to William IV were Kings of Hannover as well as whatever the UK was called at the time. However, its territory was in the BRD rather than the DDR.
HMY Britannia's immediate predecessor was the Victoria & Albert, named after Queen Victoria & Prince Albert.
The DDR is mainly territory that belonged to Prussia and Princess Victoria, the eldest child of Queen Victoria, became Queen of Prussia and the second German Empress because she married Frederick, Crown Prince of Prussia. However, she was also the mother of Wilhelm II, German Emperor, which might not endear the British public.
Forward deployed land-based ASW and AEW squadrons could use the same aircraft as well.Makes sense for the big carriers, except for how few you're building.
Where would you place the radar? Gannet has it below the fuselage (although there was a study for a conventional dish), but with the Pegasus-style engine it may be problematic.I think it's possible, you just need a stupid high thrust engine to come together in time. I mean, Gannet is about the right weight, we're just needing a bigger engine to make liftoff with a full load of fuel.
Could you elaborate, please? I heard this mentioned several times, but I can't pinpoint what exactly happened and when?Remember the legends of ARK ROYAL and the East Coast Rampage?