Warsaw Pact Britain - naval strategy and other considerations

[Scott Kenny]

Would it help that they still had the SSBN base at Rota in Spain? Perhaps they could use a fijord in Greenland or Iceland instead of Holy Loch.

IIRC, Rota was mostly for Med deployments. It'd be hard to sneak into the Baltic.

I don't know if it's possible to go straight from Polaris A3 to Trident C4. Maybe if Congress was willing to throw enough money at it and/or an earlier start is made on the STRAT-X and SLMS programmes. So there are two possibilities.

1. Trident C4 can be developed instead of Poseidon C3. I which case the Laffayettes have their Polaris missiles replaced by Trident 1 ITTL when they were rearmed with Poseidon IOTL. AIUI the George Washington & Ethan Allen classes weren't rearmed with Poseidon because the existing missile tubes were too small which made the cost of rearming them prohibitively expensive. However, ITTL the different threat and extra performance that Trident 1 had over Poseidon might make the cost of the modifications acceptable. This saves money in the long term because 12 Laffayette class were rearmed with Trident 1 circa 1980 IOTL so the money can be spent on something else.
2. Trident C4 can't be developed instead of Poseidon C3. Therefore, the Laffayettes were rearmed with Poseidon as IOTL and the 10 older SSBNs were rearmed with Poseidon too despite the extra cost. More than 12 first-generation SSBNs would have been rearmed with Trident 1 circa 1980 ITTL.
3. In either of the above scenarios there are no SALT treaties so no SSSBNs converted to SSN to remain within Treaty limits ITTL - because there were no treaties to be limited to.

The GW and Ethan Allen boats would probably stay as Polaris, and stay in Med runs out of Rota or La Maddelena until replaced by Ohios in the 1980s.

Remember, you're talking about replacing a 33ft tall 56" diameter missile with a 34ft tall 74" diameter missile in either case, by ripping the old missile compartment out and installing a whole new one. That'd take a couple years in drydock for each boat.

Which brings me to the Ohio class and the D-5 Trident II missile. The Ohio class is likely to be built in greater numbers over the same period of time.


IIRC the original plan was to lay down 10 Ohio class over 4 years (1-3-3-3) starting FY1974 and complete them 1978-81 to replace the first 15 first-generation SSBNs which according to the book I read it in had been worked particularly hard. In the event the first 10 were ordered over 10 years (1-2-1-1-2-0-1-1-0-1) starting FY1971 and they were completed 1981-89. ITTL they may be built at the rate originally planned with up to 30 completed by 1989 for a missile-for-missile replacement of the 45 first-generation SSBNs. That is 45 boats with 16 missiles each (total 720 missiles) replaced by 30 boats with 24 missiles each (total 720 missiles).

It it's Scenario 1 then 45 first-generation boats rearmed with Trident 1 in the early 1970s are replaced by 30 Ohios armed with Trident 2 - because getting Trident 1 into service has a knock-on effect on Trident 2.

If its Scenario 2 then 45 first-generation boats rearmed with Poseidon in the early 1970s (and rearmed with Trident 1 c.1980) are still replaced by 30 Ohios. All other things being equal the first 24 were completed with Trident 1 and last 6 were armed with Trident 2

Agree with Scenario 1, disagree with Scenario 2 because there's literally zero chance of spending that long refitting the subs to hold newer missiles.

Note: As an aside, I've suspected (for a long time) that the USN didn't build the 4 SSBNs in the FY1965 Programme because the RN was building 4 SSBNs.

Very likely the reason. The UK was integrated into SIOP, after all.

Sounds quite feasible, although my knowledge of SSBN's is very limited. What would be the British answer in this case, any suggestions?

Something akin to a Sierra class, or the Trafalgar class. Very quiet, and with very good sonar to hunt SSBNs.

They'd also probably try to park a few SSNs at Rota, La Mad, Norfolk, and anywhere else the SSBNs were based. Follow them to their patrol areas, get sonar signatures of them, etc. Same thing they did to the Russians historically!

Also, would the Americans consider converting some of those boats to transports and use them for transatlantic covert deliveries - to France or Ireland? Or building specialized submarine transports?

Probably would not convert any SSBNs, but there's a good chance that there would be more SSG/SSGN types built as LPSS/N types. Maybe a few Permits built as LPSSNs using the same plans as the Permit SSGN proposal.

 

[BlackBat242]

Would it help that they still had the SSBN base at Rota in Spain? Perhaps they could use a fijord in Greenland or Iceland instead of Holy Loch.

I think that there would certainly be a real attempt by Spain (with Portuguese/French/US support) to take Gibraltar from the USocK in the 1950s.

If successful, that might supplement Rota as a US base (I can see, in return for support/participation in the seizure, the US demanding to be the majority occupant to provide a more-easily secured SSN/SSBN forward base).

Whether this leads to a larger conflict or not is up for debate.

 

[BlackBat242]

@Scott Kenny , seeing your familiarity with the US inner workings - can you make a very rough estimate of what impact the unavailability of the Harrier would make on USMC and US amphibious doctrine? Will they develop a domestic VTOL or concentrate on ospreys and fast attack helicopters?

I would expect the 1960s (and into the 1970s) to see the USN/USMC work more with West Germany on a supersonic VTOL fighter (the EWR VJ 101 is likely a good candidate for US participation, as is the VFW VAK 191B) - with no BOAR/RAFG/BFG Germany would be more mindful of keeping the US involved in armament co-operation, thus bringing the aircraft through the development process to make a production fighter.

If neither of these is proceeded with, then the Convair 200 is likely to see more development work in the early/mid 1970s.

So by the late 1970s the USN/USMC (and Germany) could have a supersonic strike-fighter... either a F-104/F-8 replacement (EWR VJ 101 or VFW VAK 191B) or a Phantom counterpart (Convair 200) - or both.

Maybe the USAF buys the F-104/F-8 replacement option instead of initiating the LWF program.

 

[Scott Kenny]

P1154 - and other Harrier variants I see around here

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/advanced-harrier-projects.184/

Are definitely a possibility for both UK-USSR and UK-DDR joint projects. The West Germany had a lot of interest at a time in VTOL aircraft, so it would probably be luring for the ossies as well.

I would think Harrier to be one of the most visible British exports within and around the bloc, appearing almost everywhere - exhibitions, placards, toys.

Agreed.

@Scott Kenny , seeing your familiarity with the US inner workings - can you make a very rough estimate of what impact the unavailability of the Harrier would make on USMC and US amphibious doctrine? Will they develop a domestic VTOL or concentrate on ospreys and fast attack helicopters?

The Osprey concept didn't really gain strength until after Desert One in 1978. Before then, it was a fun concept in search of a mission.

I agree with @BlackBat242 that the US would probably join the Germans in a VTOL fighter. If that VTOL fighter takes until the Convair 200 to finish development, then I think the USAF might be arm-twisted into flying those or at least the CTOL variant thereof instead of F-16s. Since the Convair 200 was supposed to use the F401, the big-fan F100 version, it's not all that different from the F-16 anyways.

Getting a large number of aircraft using F401 engines would have a knock-on effect in improving the F-14, getting the F-14As built only as early prototypes with the actual service type being the F-14B using F401 engines.

 

[BlackBat242]

With the USocK (United Socialist Kingdom ) not co-operating with the US, there would be no TF41 - RR would never let the decadent capitalist oppressor USA get their wonderful Spey engine.

So for the A-7D/Es either a further improved TF30 or non-afterburning F401s would go in those.

A-7A: TF30-P-6 11,350 lb.s.t.
A-7B/C: TF30-P-8 12,200 lb.s.t.
A-7C/TA-7C: TF30-P-408 13,400 lb.s.t.
A-7D: TF41-A-1 14,500 lb.s.t.
A-7E: TF41-A-2 15,000 lb.s.t.

F-111F: TF30-P-100 15,000 lb.s.t. (1972)
This was an afterburning engine (25,100 lb.s.t.), but remove the afterburner can and you have a TF-41 analogue. At that point it could be a substitute for the TF30-P-412 of the F-14 (12,350 lb.s.t. [20,900 lb.s.t.]).

Personally, just producing a marinized (not marinated) version of the TF30-P-100 for the F-14 would get it more power from the start - while the first F-14 prototype flew on 14 December 1970, the first two fleet F-14 squadrons to operate the F-14A were VF-1 & VF-2 in October 1972 - as did VF-124, the F-14A FRS (Fleet Replacement Squadron). VF-124 might end up with some early-production aircraft with weaker engines, but they should have been upgraded pretty soon thereafter.

The initial carrier suitability trials were held in June 1972, and the first operational squadrons to complete carrier qualifications were only certified in the spring of 1974, with VF-1 & VF-2 deploying aboard CVAN-65 in September 1974.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

With the USocK (United Socialist Kingdom ) . . .

For what it's worth it was called the USSR-GB in the short-lived sitcom "Comrade Dad" that was on BBC2 in the middle 1980s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think that there would certainly be a real attempt by Spain (with Portuguese/French/US support) to take Gibraltar from the USocK in the 1950s.

They could take Malta while they were at it.

 

[Martes]

I think that there would certainly be a real attempt by Spain (with Portuguese/French/US support) to take Gibraltar from the USocK in the 1950s.

They could take Malta while they were at it.

That's one of the reasons I thought it prudent to fix the departure date as post-Suez. Then the Gib can be nuclear and off-limits. Doesn't mean somebody won't try, but I would suppose Gibraltar remains firmly a British base, which, to certain extent, makes US carrier presence in the Med a bit problematic.

The whole Med politics in this scenario is a hellish entanglement, and as one correspondent of mine, with interest in fringe political groups in the period, suggested - look at possible secondary military coup in Portugal and maoist groups in Italy and Ireland, and the whole thing about Albania. So there is a whole lot of potential for various military and spy action scenarios.

The Osprey concept didn't really gain strength until after Desert One in 1978. Before then, it was a fun concept in search of a mission.

So by the late 1970s the USN/USMC (and Germany) could have a supersonic strike-fighter...

So less LPDs and more USMC orientation towards forward airfield operations?

West Germany definitely would be in panic mode for some time, so I would expect deeper cooperation, yes.

For what it's worth it was called the USSR-GB in the short-lived sitcom "Comrade Dad" that was on BBC2 in the middle 1980s.

Actually, I recently felt an eery touch of this timeline.

Bonhams : Geoffrey William Hunt (British, born 1948) Joint exercises in coastal waters

Joint exercises in coastal waters signed and dated 'GEOFF/HUNT/1985' (lower left) gouache 29.5 x 72cm (11 5/8 x 28 3/8in).

www.bonhams.com

​

I found a painting, attributed to Geoff Hunt and named "Joint exercises in coastal waters", dated 1985.
But what do we see here? A Soviet helicopter, spy trawler and a definite Kara-class cruiser in the background, with a submarine periscope. So if it is a joint exercise, with whom? British painter, Soviet ships, probably British submarine.

Or maybe this cruiser is not Soviet? The helicopter is not shipborne, it's a land-based Mi-14, so it doesn't belong to her, and there is no visible flag. She could be my Type 84, y'know.

​

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's one of the reasons I thought it prudent to fix the departure date as post-Suez. Then the Gib can be nuclear and off-limits. Doesn't mean somebody won't try, but I would suppose Gibraltar remains firmly a British base, which, to certain extent, makes US carrier presence in the Med a bit problematic.

The whole Med politics in this scenario is a hellish entanglement, and as one correspondent of mine, with interest in fringe political groups in the period, suggested - look at possible secondary military coup in Portugal and maoist groups in Italy and Ireland, and the whole thing about Albania. So there is a whole lot of potential for various military and spy action scenarios.

Man, if Gibraltar remains British, that means they effectively trap fleets either in the Atlantic or in the Med!

Well, barring subs, and it'd be tough to drop a SOSUS-equivalent across there. (When did the Russians develop a SOSUS equivalent? 2016?!?)

So less LPDs and more USMC orientation towards forward airfield operations?

No, they'd still focus on amphibious assault, just using CH-46s all through the 1980s and maybe into the 1990s. Then, assuming Desert One still happened, suddenly tilt-rotors have a solid mission.

I found a painting, attributed to Geoff Hunt and named "Joint exercises in coastal waters", dated 1985.

But what do we see here? A Soviet helicopter, spy trawler and a definite Kara-class cruiser in the background, with a submarine periscope. So if it is a joint exercise, with whom? British painter, Soviet ships, probably British submarine.

There are hundreds of joint exercises between surface ships and submarines every year!

Sometimes the skimmers even know there's a submarine around that they really should be looking for, not just their usual alertness levels!

 

[Martes]

Man, if Gibraltar remains British, that means they effectively trap fleets either in the Atlantic or in the Med!

One could assume some kind of Montreax convention-style agreement with France will eventually hatch out, but yes, Med is somewhat sealed.

(When did the Russians develop a SOSUS equivalent? 2016?!?)

What was the British contribution for the initial SOSUS in reality? Technologically? Could they bring the concept earlier and would they feel a need for such tool at the time (late 60's and later)?

There are hundreds of joint exercises between surface ships and submarines every year!

I meant that painting a Soviet exercise was a kind of strange topic for Hunt in '85. So I assumed some British element should be there. Probably the sub. But still.

In the meantime I looked at interceptor conversions for Tu-22, and found the whole story of Tu-128. Indeed, Tu-22 conversions and even interceptor versions of Tu-144 (!) were proposed, so I think RAF would have liked to try that out. Just don't make me imagine interceptor HS1011.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What was the British contribution for the initial SOSUS in reality? Technologically? Could they bring the concept earlier and would they feel a need for such tool at the time (late 60's and later)?

The brief overviews I have seen of the system and of the deep sound channel make no mention of British technical assistance in either the discovery or exploitation. Not even in SOFAR bombs or RAFOS navigation pingers.

But the idea of running a whole string of hydrophones across a chokepoint is self-evidently obvious, and SOSUS proper started with 1940s/50s technology in terms of hydrophones. Plus, with as much damage as submarines had done to the UK, I cannot imaging them not pursuing ASW technologies.

A string of hydrophones laid across the chokepoint of the Straits is likely to be their first emplaced hydrophones. It'd be controlled from Gibraltar, and stretch as close to the Spanish and African territorial waters as they could manage.

In the meantime I looked at interceptor conversions for Tu-22, and found the whole story of Tu-128. Indeed, Tu-22 conversions and even interceptor versions of Tu-144 (!) were proposed, so I think RAF would have liked to try that out. Just don't make me imagine interceptor HS1011.

Agreed that some kind of big, long range interceptor would get developed. It may end up as a Soviet airframe with British avionics, instead of purely a British design.

 

[Martes]

Agreed that some kind of big, long range interceptor would get developed. It may end up as a Soviet airframe with British avionics, instead of purely a British design.

In the game terms it certainly will be a repainted Tu-22 armed with S-300 missiles and given AA radar instead of AS (making a new airplane model is extremely difficult), but I fell in love with the HS1011 so much I can't get this idea out of my head It's kind of an ideal retro-futuristic design.

----------------------

In some sense my primary "enemy" in envisioning this setting is the 1966 Defense Review, which I wanted to circumvent and reverse as much as possible. I mean - they cut, we add, they canceled, we build, they withdraw, we expand, etc.

In 1976, an extensive new study for the Naval Staff on the size of fleet needed to counter the growing challenge at sea had produced some more alarming results – it suggested, ideally, a force much larger than seemed remotely affordable. The ‘baseline fleet’ included, for example, thirty-four ships equipped with Sea Dart, in addition to the cruisers – that was nearly double the planned number. Overall, for air defence, ASW, and shadowing Soviet forces, the Navy reckoned it needed seventy-four destroyers and frigates, and twenty-four SSNs – again, fifty per cent more than were actually planned.

So what can we afford at the expense of the people, gentlemen? 3 large carriers are a must, 4 ideally, 6-8 escort cruisers, 12-14 AA cruisers, 16-18 AA destroyers, say 18-24 large frigates and 24-36 smaller ones, 24 attack SSNs and 12 oscar-style cruisers, at least 4 LPDs, retaining several of old carriers as helicopter ships. Did I miss something? Is this enough?

 

[Martes]

So by the late 1970s the USN/USMC (and Germany) could have a supersonic strike-fighter... either a F-104/F-8 replacement (EWR VJ 101 or VFW VAK 191B) or a Phantom counterpart (Convair 200) - or both.

VAK 191B uses British engine, so it's probably out (instead, there will be Harriers and possible 1154s in DDR airforce), but VJ101 and Convair 200 look pretty suitable.
Sea Control Ships for USN, what do you think?

 

[Arjen]

VAK 191B uses British engine, so it's probably out (instead, there will be Harriers and possible 1154s in DDR airforce)

Remember Michel Wibault's work on vectored thrust. If in your timeline France remains in NATO, the UK might lose access to his research. No R-R Pegasus, no Harrier, no P.1154. Maybe another VTOL concept? Something like VAK 191B might emerge with French input. Then again, maybe some other VTOL idea.

 

[Martes]

Remember Michel Wibault's work on vectored thrust. If in your timeline France remains in NATO, the UK might lose access to his research.

With timelines diverging after Suez, it's just in time.

Wiki:

Unable to interest the French government or industry in the idea, in 1955 Wibault submitted it to the NATO Mutual Weapons Development Programme and was subsequently introduced to Stanley Hooker who was then technical director of Bristol Engines. Soon Wibault agreed to work with Bristol, and they worked to lighten and simplify the engine design, leading to a new patent in 1957, jointly authored by Michel Wibault and Hooker’s assistant, Gordon Lewis.

The split happens in between 57 and 59. So the idea is already transferred and British development has already started.

One question is whether Wibault (willingly or otherwise) may be retained (or simply be there when the main event occurs and unable to return, or even specifically smuggled back) in Britain. It is an opening for Le Carre style scenario, but on the whole it is unnecessary, as Lewis likely would already be able to complete the work.

Another question - if Wibault remains in France, is whether he could reproduce the same type of an engine, thus opening the possibility of French/West-German VAK 191B, and whether France/NATO would be interested in this development more than in RL.

Purely from world design standpoint I think having three different VTOL concepts implemented at the same time (Harrier, EWR VJ 101, Convair 200) is more interesting and picturesque.

 

[Scott Kenny]

So what can we afford at the expense of the people, gentlemen? 3 large carriers are a must, 4 ideally, 6-8 escort cruisers, 12-14 AA cruisers, 16-18 AA destroyers, say 18-24 large frigates and 24-36 smaller ones, 24 attack SSNs and 12 oscar-style cruisers, at least 4 LPDs, retaining several of old carriers as helicopter ships. Did I miss something? Is this enough?

That feels way too big for the economy, even ignoring the usual ugly Soviet economy issues.

Sea Control Ships for USN, what do you think?

Or CVS/escort carriers. Because the UKRN isn't supplying them for NATO.

 

[Arjen]

The split happens in between 57 and 59. So the idea is already transferred and British development has already started.

Possible, I grant you that.

Purely from world design standpoint I think having three different VTOL concepts implemented at the same time (Harrier, EWR VJ 101, Convair 200) is more interesting and picturesque.

I do not know whether UK VTOL research would have survived a shift to Warsaw Pact military doctrine. But then the whole timeline is misty to me.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So what can we afford at the expense of the people, gentlemen? 3 large carriers are a must, 4 ideally, 6-8 escort cruisers, 12-14 AA cruisers, 16-18 AA destroyers, say 18-24 large frigates and 24-36 smaller ones, 24 attack SSNs and 12 oscar-style cruisers, at least 4 LPDs, retaining several of old carriers as helicopter ships. Did I miss something? Is this enough?

At the end of the Cold War IOTL the UK was spending 5% of GNP on defence while the USSR was estimated to be spending 20-25% of GNP on defence.

Multiply HM Forces at the end of the Cold War IOTL by a factor of 4-or-5 and one gets the People's Liberation Forces of Workers & Peasants of the Union of British Socialist Kingdoms* at the end of the 1980s ITTL.

Or the population estimate for the UK in 1989 was 56.9 million and according to its 1987 census the USSR had a population of 286.7 million or about 5 times more than the UK so divide the Soviet Forces at the end of the Cold War IOTL to produce the PLF of Workers & Peasants of the UBSK.

*It was originally the Union of British Socialist Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until I decided that it was too long.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

AIUI the economic collapse of the USSR in the 1980s was due to it trying to maintain armed forces that could fight NATO and China at the same time. (The Two-Power Standard again.)

Would it feel the need to do that with the UK as an ally ITTL?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Post 92.

So what can we afford at the expense of the people, gentlemen? 3 large carriers are a must, 4 ideally, 6-8 escort cruisers, 12-14 AA cruisers, 16-18 AA destroyers, say 18-24 large frigates and 24-36 smaller ones, 24 attack SSNs and 12 Oscar-style cruisers, at least 4 LPDs, retaining several of old carriers as helicopter ships. Did I miss something? Is this enough?

Part of Post 98.

At the end of the Cold War IOTL the UK was spending 5% of GNP on defence while the USSR was estimated to be spending 20-25%% of GDP on defence.

Multiply HM Forces at the end of the Cold War IOTL by a factor of 4-or-5 and one gets the People's Liberation Forces of Workers & Peasants of the Union of British Socialist Kingdoms* at the end of the 1980s ITTL.

IOTL the USSR had a GNP of U.S.$2,210 Billion in 1987 (U.S.$8,160 per capita) and the UK had a GNP of U.S.$592.9 Billion (U.S.$ 10,430 per capita).

I'm rather surprised that the the USSR was per capita 80% as rich as the UK as I expected it to be much poorer, which makes the following appear somewhat more feasible.

As a guide this is British surface warship construction from circa 1960 to the end of the Cold War multiplied by five.

• 15 Invincible class aircraft carriers.
• 40 County class destroyers.
• 5 Type 82 destroyers.
• 70 Type 42 destroyers.
• 80 "Standard" Leander class frigates.
• 50 "Broad Beam" Leander class frigates.
• 40 Type 21 frigates.
• 70 Type 22 frigates.
• 50 Type 23 frigates ordered to the end of the Cold War.
  • All other things being equal 80 would eventually be built ITTL.
  • However, I think that during the Cold War the plan was for 24, which if correct produces a requirement for 120 ITTL.
• The OTL John Knott's 1981 Defence Review cut the number of "frigoyers" from 60 to 42 plus 8 in reserve, which Michael "Tarzan"Heseltine increased to 50 plus none in reserve.
  • ITTL the figures would have been 300 reduced to 210 plus 40 in reserve and increased to 250 plus none in reserve.
  • However, the actual totals in the 1980s were less than that. E.g. my copy of Jane's 1986-87 said there were 46 "frigoyers" including none in reserve. Or at least I think it does because I haven't checked.
  • If I am correct that would mean there were 230 "frigoyers" in the TTL version of Jane's 1986-87.
• 10 Fearless class LPD.
• 35 Landing Ships Logistic of the Sir Lancelot and Sir Galahad classes.
• 20 Kingfisher class patrol craft.
• 35 Island class offshore patrol vessels.
• 10 Castle class offshore patrol vessels.
• 25 Peacock class patrol vessels.
• 10 Brave class fast attack craft.
• 5 Tenacity class fast attack craft.
• 15 Scimitar class fast attack craft.
• 65 Hunt class MCMV.
  • AFIAK 15 were wanted IOTL which if correct means 75 would have been wanted ITTL.
• 10 Venturer class trawler-minesweepers.
• 60 River class fleet minesweepers.
• AFIAK 15 were wanted IOTL which if correct means 75 would have been wanted ITTL.
• 25 Sandown class minehunters.
  • All other things being equal 60 would eventually be built.
  • However, I think that during the Cold War the plan was for 20, which if correct produces a requirement for 100 ITTL.
• 45 MCMV of the Hunt, River and Sandown classes were eventually built IOTL against a requirement for 50 MCMV, which ITTL produces a total of 225 built against a requirement for 250.

And also as a guide this is British submarine construction from circa 1960 to the end of the Cold War.

• 20 Resolution class SSBN. However . . .
  • IOTL 5 were planned, but the fifth boat wasn't built for political reasons.
  • ITTL 25 would have been planned and built due to the different politics of TTL.
• 10 Vanguard class SSBN laid down by 1990 against plans for a total of 20 all of which were built.
  • Except that 25 may have been built against a requirement to replace the 25 Resolution class one-for-one.
• 30 Dreadnought/Valiant/Churchill class SSN.
  • All other things being equal the first 5 would have had Soviet-built reactors instead of US-built reactors.
• 30 Swiftsure class SSN.
• 35 Trafalgar class SSN.
• 65 Oberon class SS.
• 20 Upholder class SS.
  • All other things being equal a total of 60 was planned, which was reduced to 50.
  • IIRC the long-lead items for Boats 5-to-8 were ordered before the end of the Cold War IOTL, which means that long-lead items for Boats 21-to-40 would have been ordered ITTL.

The unit cost reductions arising from the economies of scale aught to have been considerable. It's not just that the hulls, machinery and armament, et al would have been built in 5 times the quantities (which would have allowed the use of larger-scale production methods) the R&D costs would have been spread over 5 times the number of units. E.g. the R&D cost of Sea Dart would have been the same whether it was spread over the 20 systems built IOTL or the 100 built ITTL (that is assuming that 10 were exported instead of 2).

 

[BlackBat242]

VAK 191B uses British engine, so it's probably out (instead, there will be Harriers and possible 1154s in DDR airforce), but VJ101 and Convair 200 look pretty suitable.
Sea Control Ships for USN, what do you think?

Or CVS/escort carriers. Because the UKRN isn't supplying them for NATO.

I can see the Essex class being run on a few more years in the ASW role, and the VSS getting approved.

Canadair gets its CL-84 fully developed (jointly with Convair, which is still a going concern thanks to the -200) into ASW, AEW, and a H-60 class transport, which makes VSS fully viable.

 

[Martes]

Some screenshots before I compile a reply

The Tu-22M -> HP Albatross Area Defense High Altitude Interceptor System:

​

Wraiths on patrol:

​

Sargon taking off:

​

Helicopter ops:

​

Landing lights on the Escort Cruiser:

​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Everything else aside, the conventional HS681 looks so much like Il-76 I can't help but proclaim the latter a joint development.

In my version of the timeline they People's Royal Air Force buys An-12s instead of C-130Ks.

As I understand it Soviet block gas turbines have always been inferior to western ones. The An-12 prototype first flew on 16.12.57 and had Ivchyenko AI-20M turboprops producing 4,190ehp an engine in the same class as the Orion, Proteus and Tyne. All three British engines were running by the end of 1957, but I think the first An-12 prototypes of TTL would have Proteus engines and the production aircraft would have licence-built Tynes. I chose that over the Orion because the Bristol engine was cancelled in 1958 IOTL.

The Illushin Il-76 didn't fly until 1971 and didn't enter service until 1975. It's more like the C-141 Starlifter equivalent than a C-130 Hercules equivalent. In fact it has more powerful engines Soloviev D-30KP turbofans producing 26,455kgst compared to the C-141s P&W TF33-7 turbofans producing 21,000lbst.

Therefore, ITTL the PRAF buys the Il-76 to replace its Britannias to meet ASR.364. IOTL Shorts proposed the SC.5/45 which was the Starlifter's wings & tail mounted to the Belfast's fuselage and powered by four RB.178 turbofans in the same power class as the D-30KP. However, the RAF decided to buy C-5A Galaxies instead, until the plan was abandoned by the incoming Heath Government before any were ordered. ITTL all Il-76s (not just the British ones) had RB.178s or RB.211s instead of the D-30KP.

 

[Martes]

In my version of the timeline they People's Royal Air Force buys An-12s instead of C-130Ks.

Surely, we need a alternative for C-130. Although as a primary military transport aircraft I think that - just like in the USSR - there will be a very rapid shift to Il-76/HS681 as soon as it would become possible because it is much more suitable for the distances of stretched East-of-Suez commitments.

I do not know whether UK VTOL research would have survived a shift to Warsaw Pact military doctrine.

The WP doctrine I see in this case relies heavily on delegating most of the conventional naval component to Britain, as an in-bloc specialization (as opposed to NATO ASW IRL), and the whole escort cruiser concept requires VSTOL aircraft. The role of Wibault personally may be, however, overlooked during the split, and he could make it back to France without MI5/6 looking specifically for him, because the project may be marked as strategic only somewhat later. Ultimately, it's a dice throw for his fate.

Canadair gets its CL-84 fully developed (jointly with Convair, which is still a going concern thanks to the -200) into ASW, AEW, and a H-60 class transport, which makes VSS fully viable.

(looked in VSS-related threads) I like the Aegis-Invincible design. Without the laser probably (let's not overdo it), but it's a go.

*It was originally the Union of British Socialist Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland until I decided that it was too long.

As I mentioned above, post-war Britain looked (and essentially was) sufficiently socialist inside and out so you don't really have to change anything, if you recall this post (#25):

"On the North Western Railway, he rose to be General Manager in 1923, Managing Director in 1936 and upon Nationalisation in 1948, he was created a baronet on his appointment as Chairman of the Regional Executive."

That's from Thomas the Tank Engine, even there you have Regional Executive Chairman, what can be more Soviet than that? And more British than granting this Chairman a title of a baronet on the appointment?

I actually am inclined to argue that from a certain point (definitely from mid 60s, parallel with the rise of Brezhnev, but very possibly starting from the split itself) the Queen's power over the government would be more overt and pronounced than in real history. And so the involvement of Duke of Edinburgh and Lord Mountbatten, especially in naval affairs. I could explain the reasoning for this in more detail, if anybody would ask me to, why this does not contradict the Soviet doctrine, but the short version is that the Soviet Union during that period was much more monarchist aristocratic system than would seem from the outside, only the terminology was different. And since the bloc realignment considered is not ideological, but based on pure realpolitik, even Khruschev would have been content to let the UK political system to have any form they wanted, as long as it was controllable and they had more or less same people to talk to.

As a guide this is British surface warship construction from circa 1960 to the end of the Cold War multiplied by five.

Immense thanks for this list. It is a very good baseline.

We just need to figure out the Invincible-to-CVA budget ratio

AIUI the economic collapse of the USSR in the 1980s was due to it trying to maintain armed forces that could fight NATO and China at the same time. (The Two-Power Standard again.)

Would it feel the need to do that with the UK as an ally ITTL?

Having Britain as a consistent ally (as opposed to very volatile Mao) with sufficient military capabilities (which we are discussing here) would certainly ease the situation, but would it be enough to prevent the collapse remains to be seen.

You are certainly right about this consideration.

Also this probably means Hong Kong remains in British hands.

--------------------------------------------

There are some additional considerations I thought of.

- The British Army in Europe. From WP perspective the presence of a large British contingent in Germany would seem much less critical or required in comparison to NATO, so the main vector of Army deployments shifts to expeditionary operations East-of-Suez, and in terms of budget and manpower priorities they will be well below the Navy and the Air Force. There probably would be RAF pilots in Vietnam.

- There certainly are several real British aircraft designs in addition to considering various unbuilt projects I would really like to keep in addition to the Harrier - Victor, Buccaneer, VC-10, and probably others.

- Light Carrier to Missile Cruiser conversion, as in Friedman's Post War Naval Revolution - should we explore this at all? Or it would be more efficient to refit them for VSTOL/commando carriers and be done with it?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Just had an interesting idea pop up, but it's for the Army side of the timeline.

EM2 rifles in 7.62x39, and/or the PK/PKM getting built in .280 British/7x43mm instead of the dinosaur x54R.

 

[BlackBat242]

VAK 191B uses British engine, so it's probably out (instead, there will be Harriers and possible 1154s in DDR airforce), but VJ101 and Convair 200 look pretty suitable.
Sea Control Ships for USN, what do you think?

In my version of the timeline they People's Royal Air Force buys An-12s instead of C-130Ks.

As I understand it Soviet block gas turbines have always been inferior to western ones. The An-12 prototype first flew on 16.12.57 and had Ivchyenko AI-20M turboprops producing 4,190ehp an engine in the same class as the Orion, Proteus and Tyne. All three British engines were running by the end of 1957, but I think the first An-12 prototypes of TTL would have Proteus engines and the production aircraft would have licence-built Tynes. I chose that over the Orion because the Bristol engine was cancelled in 1958 IOTL.

The Illushin Il-76 didn't fly until 1971 and didn't enter service until 1975. It's more like the C-141 Starlifter equivalent than a C-130 Hercules equivalent. In fact it has more powerful engines Soloviev D-30KP turbofans producing 26,455kgst compared to the C-141s P&W TF33-7 turbofans producing 21,000lbst.

Therefore, ITTL the PRAF buys the Il-76 to replace its Britannias to meet ASR.364. IOTL Shorts proposed the SC.5/45 which was the Starlifter's wings & tail mounted to the Belfast's fuselage and powered by four RB.178 turbofans in the same power class as the D-30KP. However, the RAF decided to buy C-5A Galaxies instead, until the plan was abandoned by the incoming Heath Government before any were ordered. ITTL all Il-76s (not just the British ones) had RB.178s or RB.211s instead of the D-30KP.

Yes, the AN-12 is close enough to the C-130K to work... but what about for a heavy lifter?

The AN-22 was contemporary to the Belfast (first flight AN-22 27 Feb 1965, first flight Belfast 5 Jan 1964; service entry AN-22 1969, service entry Belfast 20 Jan 1966) and well before the Il-76 (first flight 25 Mar 1971, service entry June 1974) - the Il-76MF (longer, wider, taller cargo bay) first flew in 1995 - but the AN-22 dwarfed them all (even the Douglas C-132 & 133!).

Or perhaps more Belfasts (whose cargo bay is larger than the baseline Il-76) are bought (their buy was cut short in favor of the smaller C-130, but here the AN-12's narrower & lower headroom cargo bay would be more restrictive, presenting a more urgent need for "outsized" capacity)?
And maybe there is a lengthened "IL-76 wing" Belfast variant in the 1970s?

Cargo compartment dimensions & weight capacity

C-5A/B: Length 37 m X width 5.8 m X height 4.1 m
Payload: 118,387 kg [129,274 kg max payload C-5M]

An-22: Length 33 m X width 4.4 m X height 4.4 m
Payload: 80,000 kg

C-132: Length 29.95 m X width 5.18 m X height 3.81 m
Payload: 62,272 kg max normal [90,900 kg overload]

C-133: Length 27 m X width 3.7 m X height 2.9 m
Payload: 50,000 kg

Il-76MF/TF: Length 26.6 m X width 3.45 m X height 3.4 m + 4.54 m length on ramp
Payload: 60,000 kg

Il-76: Length 20 m X width 3.15 m X height 3.25 m + 4.54 m length on ramp
Payload: 42,000 - 50,000 kg

Short Belfast: Length 25.7 m X width 3.66 m X height 3.66 m
Payload: 35,381 kg

C-141B: Length 28.45 m X width 3.12 m X height 2.77 m
Payload: 31,239 kg

C-141A: Length 21.34 m X width 3.12 m X height 2.77 m
Payload: 28,900 kg

C-130H-30/J-30: Length 16.9 m X width 3.12 m X height 2.74 m + 3.12 m length on ramp
Payload: 20,000 kg

C-130H/J: Length 12.31 m X width 3.12 m X height 2.74 m + 3.12 m length on ramp
Payload: 20,000 kg

An-12: Length 13.5 m X width 3 m X height 2.5 m [height 2.35 m under main wing]
Payload: 20,000 kg

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Surely, we need a alternative for C-130. Although as a primary military transport aircraft I think that - just like in the USSR - there will be a very rapid shift to Il-76/HS681 as soon as it would become possible because it is much more suitable for the distances of stretched East-of-Suez commitments.

We don't need an alternative for C-130 and don't call me Shirley.

The range of the HS.681 and C-130K was great enough to give them what the RAF called "inter-theatre" capability and I expect the An-12 with Tyne engines to have it too. Therefore, there's no need to replace them with a jet transport like the Il-76.

In any case HS.681 and C-130K were complimentary to the larger transports in the "island base" strategy as they did different jobs.

• The strategic transports took the "stuff"from the UK to the Island Base.
  • And.
• The tactical transports took it from the Island Base the Airhead near the front.

The short take-off characteristics of the HS.681 were required because the runways at the airheads it planned to use weren't long enough for a conventional aircraft like the Hercules. Except, they were wrong. By the middle 1960s they'd discovered that there were enough airfields with runways long enough for a conventional aircraft like the Hercules after all and the short take-off characteristics of the HS.681 we unnecessary.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In the early 1970s the OTL RAF had a:

• Strategic transport force of 5 squadrons (1 Belfast, 2 Britannia, 1 Comet C.4 and 1 VC.10) with 52 aircraft (10 Belfasts, 23 Britannias, 5 Comet C.4 and 14 VC.10s).
  • And.
• Tactical transport force of 7 squadrons (1 Andover and 6 Hercules C.1) with some of the 31 Andovers that were built (it originally equipped 3 squadrons) and 65 Hercules C.1s (the 66th was the sole W.2).

In the second half of the 1960s the plan was to replace the Britannias with 15 ASR.364 aircraft by the middle-to-late 1970s. I don't know (but I suspect) that the longer-term plan was to replace the Belfasts, Comets and VC.10s with more ASR.364s.

My ideal (for the "normal" UK) for strategic transports is that ASR.315 produces an aircraft like the C.141A or Short SC.5/45 with Conway engines instead of the V.1000/VC.7 and 59 are built instead of the 52 aircraft above instead of the 7 V.1000s ordered IOTL. In that case there's not need for the OTL ASR.364 because the ASR.315 aircraft (possibly with the Conways replaces by RB.178s or RB.211s) can do the job.

My ideal (for the "normal" UK) for tactical transports is that a C-130 analogue is developed instead of the Beverley, which is built for the RAF instead of the Argosy and C-130K as well as the Beverley. I want all the aircraft to have Tyne engines, but it's more likely that the 2 prototypes and 47 production aircraft built instead of the Beverley have Clyde or Proteus engines instead of the Tyne and as the Beverley had Bristol Centaurus engines its probably the Bristol Proteus.

Yes, the AN-12 is close enough to the C-130K to work... but what about for a heavy lifter?

Would it be significantly better with Tynes instead of the OTL engines?

The AN-22 was contemporary to the Belfast (first flight AN-22 27 Feb 1965, first flight Belfast 5 Jan 1964; service entry AN-22 1969, service entry Belfast 20 Jan 1966) and well before the Il-76 (first flight 25 Mar 1971, service entry June 1974) - the Il-76MF (longer, wider, taller cargo bay) first flew in 1995 - but the AN-22 dwarfed them all (even the Douglas C-132 & 133!).

IOTL the Belfast was intended to enter service in 1964 and I think the RAF wouldn't wait until 1969 for the An-22, but ITTL the Belfast would have been a stop-gap for 33 An-22s to replace the Britannias from 1970 and the Belfasts by 1975.

BOAC and the RAF might buy the Illushin Il-62 with Conway engines instead of the VC.10 and the RAF buying 30 Il.76 tankers instead of converting 31 Victor B.1s to tankers.

Or BOAC buys 55 VC.10s instead of 27 and the RAF buys 45 VC.10 C.1K two-point tanker-transports instead of 14 C.1 transports and converting 31 Victor B.1s to 3-point tankers. That increases the number of VC.10s built for the British state from 41 to 100.

Or perhaps more Belfasts (whose cargo bay is larger than the baseline Il-76) are bought (their buy was cut short in favor of the smaller C-130, but here the AN-12's narrower & lower headroom cargo bay would be more restrictive, presenting a more urgent for "outsized" capacity)?

FWIW the RAF didn't reduce the number of Belfasts in favour of the smaller C-130. The RAF planned to buy 10 Belfasts all along and the C-130K (and HS.681) were to replace the Hastings, Beverley and some of the Argossies. You may be referring to Shorts tooling up for a production run of 30 aircraft, but that was to be 10 for the RAF plus 20 sold to British airlines or exported.

IOTL BAC Filton's rival to the HS.681 was the BAC.222. It was a licence-built Hercules with Tyne engines and a fatter fuselage with a taller & wider cargo bay. The BAC.222 of TTL could be a licence-built An-12 with Tyne engines and a fatter fuselage with a taller & wider cargo bay. FWIW the HS.681 had a taller & wider cargo bay than the C-130 too. It was the RAF's requirement.

And maybe there is a lengthened "IL-76 wing" Belfast variant in the 1970s?

Yes. Instead of the SC.5/45 with "C-141 wing" of OTL and RB.178 or RB.211 engines.

Cargo compartment dimensions & weight capacity

Il-76MF/TF: Length 26.6 m X width 3.45 m X height 3.4 m + 4.54 m length on ramp
Payload: 60,000 kg

Il-76: Length 20 m X width 3.15 m X height 3.25 m + 4.54 m length on ramp
Payload: 42,000 - 50,000 kg

Short Belfast: Length 25.7 m X width 3.66 m X height 3.66 m
Payload: 35,381 kg

Or the original Il-76 is built with a cargo bay with the width and height of the Belfast ITTL. Or is that effectively what you're saying?

 

[Martes]

We don't need an alternative for C-130 and don't call me Shirley.

Terribly sorry - the word was "surely" and meant as "of course". I wanted to emphasize I totally forgot about transport aircraft at all.

BOAC and the RAF might buy the Illushin Il-62 with Conway engines instead of the VC.10 and the RAF buying 30 Il.76 tankers instead of converting 31 Victor B.1s to tankers.

Or BOAC buys 55 VC.10s instead of 27 and the RAF buys 45 VC.10 C.1K two-point tanker-transports instead of 14 C.1 transports and converting 31 Victor B.1s to 3-point tankers. That increases the number of VC.10s built for the British state from 41 to 100.

I thought of using the VC10 for tanker and AWACS variants and possibly some advanced SIGINT aircraft in the 80s.

As to Victors, isn't there some other use for them, except converting to tankers?

 

[Martes]

IOTL the Belfast was intended to enter service in 1964 and I think the RAF wouldn't wait until 1969 for the An-22, but ITTL the Belfast would have been a stop-gap for 33 An-22s to replace the Britannias from 1970 and the Belfasts by 1975.

I think I like this variant.

 

[Martes]

The range of the HS.681 and C-130K was great enough to give them what the RAF called "inter-theatre" capability and I expect the An-12 with Tyne engines to have it too. Therefore, there's no need to replace them with a jet transport like the Il-76.

In any case HS.681 and C-130K were complimentary to the larger transports in the "island base" strategy as they did different jobs.

• The strategic transports took the "stuff"from the UK to the Island Base.
  • And.
• The tactical transports took it from the Island Base the Airhead near the front.

The short take-off characteristics of the HS.681 were required because the runways at the airheads it planned to use weren't long enough for a conventional aircraft like the Hercules. Except, they were wrong. By the middle 1960s they'd discovered that there were enough airfields with runways long enough for a conventional aircraft like the Hercules after all and the short take-off characteristics of the HS.681 we unnecessary.

Perfectly makes sense.

So -
An-12 goes to tactical transport and remains with us for long, just as C-130 IRL, gradually receiving engine upgrades and all that.
An-22 and later Il-76/HS681/ASR364 form a strategic transport service

?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Terribly sorry - the word was "surely" and meant as "of course". I wanted to emphasize I totally forgot about transport aircraft at all.

There's no need to be apologise. It was what's scientifically known as a joke.

See the film "Airplane!" which is the only legitimate use of that non-word. To paraphrase Michael Gough in "Reach for the Sky"

"Never, Never call it a airplane @Martes, it's an aeroplane."​

What he said in the film was.

“Never, Never call it a plane Bader, it's an aeroplane.”​

'Never, Never call it a plane Bader, it's an aeroplane.' - Reach for the Sky

Flying Instructor Pearson: Never, Never call it a plane Bader, it's an aeroplane.

clip.cafe

I thought of using the VC10 for tanker and AWACS variants and possibly some advanced SIGINT aircraft in the 80s.

Second-hand VC.10s were converted to tankers, but I thought the position of the engines would have made them poor AEW aircraft.

As to Victors, isn't there some other use for them, except converting to tankers?

Retain them as conventional bombers. They could carry a much heavier load of bombs than the Valiant and Vulcan.

 

[Martes]

Retain them as conventional bombers. They could carry a much heavier load of bombs than the Valiant and Vulcan.

In perspective, they can be stuffed with anti-ship/anti-surface missiles, I suppose. The smaller ones, like Kh-55 and Kh-59?

For some reason everybody seems eager to convert them to tankers, and it's a waste.

 

[Martes]

And one more crazy thought - what do you think about a hybrid between Lynx and Kamov's coaxial rotors?

 

[Arjen]

With the UK receiving Soviet technology, I would expect some reciprocity - UK jet engines to the Soviet Union? Exchange of knowledge in metallurgy? Improved specific fuel.consumption for jet engines?

 

[Martes]

With the UK receiving Soviet technology, I would expect some reciprocity - UK jet engines to the Soviet Union?

Engines, electronics, cars, various consumer products, quite a lot of things. But then most of consumer-level products did look kind of the same, so it wouldn't be really noticeable.
Rolls-Royce would be a hit with party nomenclature
And it's possible that one of Austin models (Maxi?) would be adopted instead of Fiat-124.

And, as they said in Ice Station Zebra -

"The Russians put our camera, developed by our German scientists, and your film, developed by your German scientists into their satellite made by their German scientists."

They can combine their German scientists.

 

[Martes]

Second-hand VC.10s were converted to tankers, but I thought the position of the engines would have made them poor AEW aircraft.

Interference of airflow between the dish and the tail wings, or problems with center of mass?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Interference of airflow between the dish and the tail wings, or problems with center of mass?

Neither. I thought there wouldn't be space for the aft radar and if there was the exhaust from the engines would interfere it.

It looks like I was wrong on both counts. There are some models and drawing on the internet of VC.10 AEW variant with the Nimrod AEW radars and there's a book called "Vickers VC10: AEW, Pofflers and other Unbuilt Variants" by Chris Gibson who's a member of this site.

However, the Soviets used the Il-76 as their AEW and tanker aircraft. The RAF may buy them instead of the VC.10 tankers and Nimrod AEW/Boeing sentry, which ITTL would replace the 12 Tu-126s it acquired instead of the Shackleton AEW.2.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

And, as they said in Ice Station Zebra -

"The Russians put our camera, developed by our German scientists, and your film, developed by your German scientists into their satellite made by their German scientists."

They can combine their German scientists.

According to my mother the joke going around when the Soviets launched Sputnik 1 was that they got into space before the Americans because they had better Germans.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In perspective, they can be stuffed with anti-ship/anti-surface missiles, I suppose. The smaller ones, like Kh-55 and Kh-59?

For some reason everybody seems eager to convert them to tankers, and it's a waste.

FWIW the RAF squadron patterns I have from the middle 1960s (which cover the period from then until 1975-77) have the Vulcan bombers withdrawn in the early 1970s and the Victor B.2/SR.2 squadrons being retained until 1975-77 and presumably beyond. My guess is that they were kept as bombers instead of the Vulcans because they could carry more bombs, which made them more useful in limited wars. I think some of them show VC.10 tankers coming into service in the middle 1970s too.