Warsaw Pact Britain - naval strategy and other considerations

[Martes]

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

That's the easy solution, and I did think about it as well - replace the guns with Sea Wolf and be done with it, maybe polish the hull model a bit.

Indeed an option, but it doesn't answer the underlying question - would the navy need such ship at all, if it is possible to build the larger Kara/T84 in sufficient numbers, because this ship is not much smaller and not that cheaper, and requires to maintain two types of ships with very close mission profiles.

So the choice is between Kara/T84 batch 2 (with different AA missile arrangement) or a separate AAW escort ship with reduced ASW component.

 

[Martes]

Here is something (a hangar-equipped variant of the T82?) that is also suspiciously Kresta-looking:


This even says, leave the RPK launchers where they are (i.e. there is Ikara as ASW capability that has to be mirrored). And a cut forecastle. And a combined funnel-mast. Hm.

Still doesn't answer the question of why design a separate type ITTL, though.

 

[Martes]

In any case, here is a Kara/Type84 variant with 1 Sea Dart and 8 Sea Wolf/SA-N-9 containers (6x8 in cluster aft, one larger per each side in place of old SA-N-4 mounts, I will probably have to replace those at some point) with corresponding trackers/lluminators.

​

 

[Martes]

Potentially, there is a third variant that can be done on the same hull - a specialized ASW ship, with 2-helicopter hangar aft, and Sea Wolf forward, and that could be a nice replacement for IRL Type 22.

The large frigate that is based on a mix between project 1155 and a blown-up Type 23 then slides into the 80's by the timeline and would feature the first regular multi-cell VLS.

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

Another question I wanted to address here.

The Soviets had in their catalog a certain SA-N-7, aka naval Buk. Medium-range anti-air missile. There is no direct equivalent in the British inventory, not that I know of. Would RN be interested in such system? And if yes, rail launched early or VLS late 80's?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 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 Message 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.

The TTL version of the “Military Aircraft of the World” in “Flight International” for the Week Ending 19th August 1989 would say.

• 480 AV-8B Harrier II (P.40) including 10 development aircraft.
  • The RAF is considering acquisition of a GR.5/7 compatible version of the TAV-8A, which would become the Harrier T.10, as an alternative to a major modernisation of its early-generation Harrier T.4s.
  • All other things being equal the RAF would order 70 TAV-8B, but 5 were cancelled, reducing the number to 65 for a total of 545 Harrier IIs.
• 1,250+ Eurofighters (P.40) plus prototypes.
  • At that time IOTL the first of 8 prototypes was scheduled to fly in 1991 and production deliveries were to begin in 1996.
  • The Flight article didn’t say, but the UK was to pay 33% of the R&D costs.
  • All other things being equal the RAF would have bought 800 Eurofighter Typhoons, but as the Cold War doesn't end ITTL all 1,250+ aircraft planned in 1989 were would have been built.
• 2,170 Tornados (P.41) plus prototypes – 1,965 were on order and HMG announced its intention to purchase 205 additional aircraft in November 1988, but the contract had not been signed by June 1989.
  • 1,270 IDS = 1,140 ordered and 130 planned.
    • In addition 5 pre-production aircraft were to be re-worked to production standard.
  • 900 ADV = 825 ordered and 75 planned.
  • IOTL 9 prototypes, one static test article and 6 pre-production IDS aircraft were built.
  • IOTL 4 pre-production aircraft (one British, 2 German and one Italian) were to be re-worked to production standard.
  • IOTL the UK paid 47.6% of the R&D cost of the IDS and 100% of the R&D cost of the ADV.
  • IOTL the end of the Cold War meant that the eighth batch of Tornados was never ordered, but the RAF took over the 8 Tornado ADV by Oman, which increased the total to 401 aircraft (228 IDS & 173 ADV), which ITTL would work out as 2,005 Tornados (1,140 IDS & 865).
  • However, the Cold War doesn't end ITTL so at least 2,170 Tornadoes (1,270 IDS and 900 ADV) would have been built as there may have been additional batches of aircraft after eighth batch.
• 1,015 Jaguars (P.41) consisting of 825 GR.1 & 190 T.2 - plus prototypes of which there were 8 IOTL.
• 725 Short Tucano T.1 = 650 ordered + 75 Short planned (P.44 & 45).
  • All other things being equal only the 650 on order in 1989 would have been built.
  • Except that all other things weren't equal and 725 were built.
• 5 EAP prototypes (P.60).
• 285 Sea Harrier FRS.1 (P.61-62).
  • The first of 10 FRS.2 trials aircraft flew on 19.08.88.
  • The RN was likely to purchase up to 80 new-build FRS.2s.
  • The RN actually purchased 90 new-built FRS.2s (renamed the F/A.2).
    • And.
  • According to the TTL version of the UK Serials website 175 FRS.1s were rebuilt to F/A.2 standard.
• 880 Hawk T.1 (P.62) including 5 pre-production aircraft and 440 modified to Hawk T.1A standard for secondary air defence duties.

As I wrote about the RN's warships in Message 100, the economies of scale aught to have been considerable.

• E.g. on the R&D front the UK was spending enough money to pay 165% of the Eurofighter's R&D cost, 500% of the Tornado ADV's R&D cost and 238% of the Tornado IDS's R&D cost.
• The R&D costs would be spread over a larger number of units.
• The airframes, engines, avionics and armament et al would have been built in 5 times the quantities, which would have allowed the use of larger-scale production methods.

I'm not going back to 1960 like I did with warships because the UK spent a larger proportion of GNP on Defence from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Therefore, aircraft like the Gnat, Jet Provost, Lightning, Victor Mk 2 and Vulcan Mk 2 wouldn't have been built in five times the quantities.

The only RAF combat aircraft that I'm making an exception of is the first-generation Harrier (GR.1 to T.4) of which 735 were built (590 single-seat and 145 two-seat) plus prototypes of which there were 8 IOTL (6 single-seat and 2 two-seat). That's because it entered service with the RAF at the end of the 1960s but remained in production for it into the 1980s.

 

[Martes]

The TTL version of the “Military Aircraft of the World” in “Flight International” for the Week Ending 19th August 1989 would say.

Quite the numbers, and many thanks for compiling this.

But how would you estimate the number of heavier aircraft that has no direct IRL alternatives, like the Mig-25 and Tu-22M?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Quite the numbers, and many thanks for compiling this.

But how would you estimate the number of heavier aircraft that has no direct IRL alternatives, like the Mig-25 and Tu-22M?

I would say that the MiG-25 is loosely analogous to the Tornado ADV, while the Tu-22M is analogous to the various V-bombers (and TSR-2).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Quite the numbers, and many thanks for compiling this.

You're welcome.

But how would you estimate the number of heavier aircraft that has no direct IRL alternatives, like the Mig-25 and Tu-22M?

I don't, because I wouldn't. The point was to give a rough guide to the size of the RAF in your timeline.

I'm not convinced that HM Forces of your timeline would acquire so much Soviet equipment, either buy direct purchase or building it under licence. It doesn't need to if the communist HMG of the your timeline spends money on defence in the amounts that I've suggested (which may be a gross overestimate) because its spending enough money to pay for 100% of the R&D and then some (see the Eurofighter and Tornado) so the surplus R&D money can be spent on more national projects. Plus what I wrote about the production economies of scale.

I'm not convinced that the TTL RAF & RN would want an aircraft in the Tu-22M class. Furthermore, there won't be a 1957 Defence Review as we know it. Amongst other things the Avro 730 may not be cancelled and if it isn't there will be follow-on aircraft in its class.

I agree with @Scott Kenny that the Tornado ADV is roughly analogous to the Mig-25. Furthermore, as there's no 1957 Defence Review as we know it two of the competing Specification F.155 designs reach the prototype stage and one of them is put into production by the middle of the 1960s. Although, the TTL RAF may not want Tornado ADV because it was a long-range interceptor to work in the GIUK Gap and ITTL the main threat would be from aircraft attacking from France and the Low Countries.

However, I disagree with @Scott Kenny's statement that the V-bombers were analogous to the Tu-22M. The Avro 730 was the closest to that IOTL and that may be stretching it because it was a supersonic strategic reconnaissance aircraft rather than a supersonic strategic bomber.

Instead, the V-bombers were analogous the Myasishchev M-4 and Tupolev Tu-16. Except, they won't be built instead of the V-bombers in your version of TTL.

That's because in your version of TTL the POD is the aftermath of the Suez Crisis. The development and production of the V-bombers was far too advanced by the end of October 1956 ITTL for Soviet designed bombers to be built in their place.

• The 7 Valiant, Victor and Vulcan prototypes made their first flights between August 1951 and May 1954.
• All 128 production of the Valiants ordered IOTL were ordered between February 1951 and May 1953 - So no change there ITTL.
  • 66 were delivered between December 1954 and July 1956.
  • 38 were delivered between July 1956 and September 1957.
  • 24 were cancelled in the 1957 Defence Review.
  • The first Valiant squadron formed in January 1955.
  • A total of 7 squadrons had formed by the end of October 1956.
  • Another 2 squadrons would form by the end of January 1957.
  • For a total of 9 Valiant squadrons formed IOTL.
  • That is 7 medium bomber, one LRPR and one bomber support squadron.
  • And if I remember correctly 24 Valiants from 4 medium bomber squadrons fought in the Suez War.
  • A POD of the Suez War is far too late to stop that.
• 94 out of 134 Vulcan production aircraft were ordered between July 1952 and February 1956 - So no change there.
  • The other 40 were ordered in December 1957 and I think they still will be in your version of the TL.
  • The first 25 aircraft were delivered between June 1955 and December 1957.
  • The first Vulcan squadron formed in May 1957.
  • A POD of the Suez War is far too late to stop that.
• 79 of the 109 Victor production aircraft were ordered between July 1952 and February 1956 - So no change there.
  • The other 30 were ordered in January 1958 and I think they still will be in your version of the TL.
  • The first 25 aircraft were delivered between January 1958 and September 1958.
  • The first Victor squadron formed in April 1958.
  • A POD of the Suez War is early enough to stop that.
  • However, but the cancellation charges and the time required to re-tool the factory to build the M-4 or Tu-16 mean that continuing with the Victor was the better option.

However, it's different with my version of the timeline because the POD is the 1945 General Election.

 

[Yellow Palace]

I'm not convinced that HM Forces of your timeline would acquire so much Soviet equipment, either buy direct purchase or building it under licence. It doesn't need to if the communist HMG of the your timeline spends money on defence in the amounts that I've suggested (which may be a gross overestimate) because its spending enough money to pay for 100% of the R&D and then some (see the Eurofighter and Tornado) so the surplus R&D money can be spent on more national projects.

I think Martes wants to imagine a world where the UK is equipped with Soviet equipment, rather than a world where the UK adopts a political stance aligned with the USSR but maintains independent industry. Or at least that's the impression that the ship designs give - they're adapting Soviet designs to carry some British kit, rather than (as I think more likely) replacing the relatively limited American and Australian kit on British ships with British or Soviet kit.

 

[Scott Kenny]

However, I disagree with @Scott Kenny's statement that the V-bombers were analogous to the Tu-22M. The Avro 730 was the closest to that IOTL and that may be stretching it because it was a supersonic strategic reconnaissance aircraft rather than a supersonic strategic bomber.

Instead, the V-bombers were analogous the Myasishchev M-4 and Tupolev Tu-16. Except, they won't be built instead of the V-bombers in your version of TTL.

I probably didn't write that well enough.

What I mean is that the Tu22M would likely replace the V-bombers. Yes, the V-bombers would get built assuming the 1956 POD. The Tu22M would replace the V-bombers in the 1970s, when the ~275 V-bombers would likely be needing to be retired anyway.

It might end up needing a longer range than the one from our timeline to be able to reach NY or DC from the UK, but the overall design would likely stay pretty similar.

Well, unless the need to reach CONUS from the UK meant that the Tu160 got built earlier.

However, it's different with my version of the timeline because the POD is the 1945 General Election.

Are you thinking UK building Soviet designs, UK assisting in developing new designs, or basing Soviet bombers in the UK? The delivery flight for any Soviet bombers going to the UK would be a long flight. North and down past Norway.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Responses to Message 210.

I probably didn't write that well enough.

Fair enough. However, I've changed my mind about the MiG-25 being analogous to the Tornado ADV. Now I think it's the MiG-31 because it entered service in the early 1980s and Tornado ADV entered service in 1987.

What I mean is that the Tu22M would likely replace the V-bombers. Yes, the V-bombers would get built assuming the 1956 POD. The Tu22M would replace the V-bombers in the 1970s, when the ~275 V-bombers would likely be needing to be retired anyway.

It might end up needing a longer range than the one from our timeline to be able to reach NY or DC from the UK, but the overall design would likely stay pretty similar.

Well, unless the need to reach CONUS from the UK meant that the Tu160 got built earlier.

To cut a long story short:

• The Victor Mk 1s were converted to tankers in the second half of the 1960s to replace the Valiant Mk 1s;
• The Victor Mk 2s were converted to tankers in the second half of the 1970s to replace the Victor Mk 1s;
  • And.
• The last Vulcan bomber squadron disbanded in December 1982.

The Vulcans were replaced by Tornados IOTL, not a new heavy bomber design. ITTL they'll either be replaced by Tornado done as a UK-only project of the nearest Soviet equivalent built under licence which AFAIK is MiG-27 or Su-24.

Except, that's the serious answer and this isn't a serious thread. So alright then, Tu22Ms in the 1970s and Tu160s in the 1980s.

Are you thinking UK building Soviet designs, UK assisting in developing new designs, or basing Soviet bombers in the UK?

Soviet bombers will be based in the UK ITTTL and will take the place of the US bombers based in the UK ITTL. I don't know about the rest. I haven't thought about it.

The delivery flight for any Soviet bombers going to the UK would be a long flight. North and down past Norway.

Maybe, but as it's a delivery flight, it would be a one-way trip. They might be able to fly via the British Zone of Germany, which in my version of the TL is combined with the Soviet Zone to create a Greater DDR. Also Soviet bombers (Long Range Aviation and/or Naval Aviation) will be based in the UK instead of the US bombers and they'll have to make the same trip too. Plus if they can reach the USA from Soviet bases, won't they be able to reach the UK from Soviet bases? That's is even though they have to fly around Norway.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think Martes wants to imagine a world where the UK is equipped with Soviet equipment, rather than a world where the UK adopts a political stance aligned with the USSR but maintains independent industry. Or at least that's the impression that the ship designs give - they're adapting Soviet designs to carry some British kit, rather than (as I think more likely) replacing the relatively limited American and Australian kit on British ships with British or Soviet kit.

That's what I think he wants to imagine too. However, I think they'll build more of the same OTL kit. That is, subject to not being able to use equipment that was built in other western countries, which I think will, in the main, have UK designed equipment built in its place. The UK is too rich and has an armaments industry too large (design and production) to simply build Soviet designs under licence.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Fair enough. However, I've changed my mind about the MiG-25 being analogous to the Tornado ADV. Now I think it's the MiG-31 because it entered service in the early 1980s and Tornado ADV entered service in 1987.

Well, the Tornado was way late in terms of delivery. Capability-wise, it might be closer to the MiG-31.

I'd expect that a big long-range interceptor would get developed in the 1970s. Might not be as physically huge as the Foxbat, but it'd still be on the same size as a Tomcat or F-4.

To cut a long story short:

• The Victor Mk 1s were converted to tankers in the second half of the 1960s to replace the Valiant Mk 1s;
• The Victor Mk 2s were converted to tankers in the second half of the 1970s to replace the Victor Mk 1s;
  • And.
• The last Vulcan bomber squadron disbanded in December 1982.

The Vulcans were replaced by Tornados IOTL, not a new heavy bomber design.

Right, because the UK had dropped the idea of strategic bombers in the 1960s.

But in either timeline we'd be talking about here, that didn't happen.

ITTL they'll either be replaced by Tornado done as a UK-only project of the nearest Soviet equivalent built under licence which AFAIK is MiG-27 or Su-24.

I'd agree that the Red UK would build some relatively small bombers to take weapons to France and the US part of Germany.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Quite the numbers, and many thanks for compiling this.

But how would you estimate the number of heavier aircraft that has no direct IRL alternatives, like the Mig-25 and Tu-22M?

I'm not convinced that HM Forces of your timeline would acquire so much Soviet equipment, either buy direct purchase or building it under licence. It doesn't need to if the communist HMG of the your timeline spends money on defence in the amounts that I've suggested (which may be a gross overestimate) because its spending enough money to pay for 100% of the R&D and then some (see the Eurofighter and Tornado) so the surplus R&D money can be spent on more national projects.

I think Martes wants to imagine a world where the UK is equipped with Soviet equipment, rather than a world where the UK adopts a political stance aligned with the USSR but maintains independent industry. Or at least that's the impression that the ship designs give - they're adapting Soviet designs to carry some British kit, rather than (as I think more likely) replacing the relatively limited American and Australian kit on British ships with British or Soviet kit.

This is a modification of what I wrote in Message 205. That is the TTL version of the “Military Aircraft of the World” in “Flight International” for the Week Ending 19th August 1989. The main modification being what the Warsaw Pact substitutes may have been.

• 480 AV-8B Harrier II (P.40) including 10 development aircraft on order and 70 TAV-8B planned for a total of 550.
  • They can't do that ITTL because it was a joint project with McDonnell.
  • Instead it will be an all-British project, which Britain can afford because (AFA(K) the UK paid 40% of the airframe R&D cost and 60% of the engine R&D cost IOTL, which works out as 200% and 300% ITTL.
  • [The AFAIK was wrong. BAe made some 40% of the AV-8B airframe. It didn't say who built how much of the Pegasus engine, but I assume 100% was by Rolls-Royce.]
  • However, instead of the Harrier II as we know it, it will be the "Big Wing" Harrier proposed IOTL.
  • There isn't a Soviet equivalent IOTL, unless there was a development of the Yak-38 that I don't know about.
  • The British won't build the Yak-141 under licence instead of Harrier II because the aircraft do different jobs. They might build it under licence instead of Sea Harrier F/A.2 though. See below.
  • Furthermore, @Martes has already written that the Soviets will buy the first-generation Harrier from the UK instead of the Yak-38.
• 1,250+ Eurofighters (P.40) plus prototypes.
  • They can't do that ITTL because it was a joint project with Italy, Spain and West Germany.
  • Instead it will be an all-British project ITTL, which Britain can afford because it paid 33% of the R&D cost IOTL, which works out as 165% ITTL.
  • However, instead of the Eurofighter Typhoon as we know it, it may be a straight development of the EAP ITTL.
  • According to my internet search the Soviet equivalents to the Eurofighter are the Su-27 and Su-35.
• 2,170 Tornados (P.41) plus prototypes on order or planned consisting of 1,270 IDS and 900 ADV.
  • They can't do that ITTL as it was a joint project with Italy and West Germany.
  • Instead it will be an all-British project ITTL, which Britain can afford because it paid 47.6% and 100% of the R&D costs of the IDS and ADV respectively IOTL, which works out as 238% and 500% respectively ITTL.
  • However, instead of the Tornado as we know it, it may be more like the UKVG.
  • According to my internet search the Soviet equivalents to the Tornado are the MiG-27 and Su-24 for the IDS and @Scott Kenny and I think the MiG-25 and MiG-31 respectively as equivalents to the ADV.
  • Therefore, either 1,270 Su-24 and 900 MiG-31 or 1,270 Su-24 IDS and 900 Su-24 ADV.
• 1,015 Jaguars (P.41) consisting of 825 GR.1 & 190 T.2 - plus prototypes of which there were 8 IOTL.
  • They can't do that ITTL because it was a joint project with France.
  • Instead it will be an all-British project ITTL, which Britain can afford because it paid 50% of the R&D cost IOTL, which works out as 250% ITTL.
  • It won't be the Jaguar as we know it because it was based on the French Breguet Br.121.
  • Instead it may be the BAC Warton P.45 or the Hawker Siddeley Kingston P.1173.
  • There isn't a Soviet equivalent to the Jaguar that I know of.
  • However, there was the Romanian/Yugoslavian IAR-93/J-22.
  • But, there can't be an Anglo-Romanian-Yugoslavian aircraft ITTL because the first Jaguar prototype flew in 1968 IOTL while the Romanian/Yugoslavian project didn't begin until 1970 and the first prototype didn't fly until 1974.
  • If anything the Balkan nations will build P.45 or P.1173 under licence or still do their OTL project with a more powerful British-designed engine than the Viper used IOTL.
  • According to the Wikipedia article HMG wouldn't give them a manufacturing licence on the British engine that they wanted to use.
• 725 Short Tucano T.1 on order or planned (P.44 & 45).
  • It wouldn't be the Tucano ITTL.
  • There isn't a Soviet equivalent to the Tucano that I know of.
  • However, the list of equivalent aircraft in the Tucano's Wikipedia entry includes the Polish PZL-130 Orlik, which first flew in 1984, so that might be built instead of a domestic design.
• 5 EAP prototypes (P.60).
  • ITTL this may be the basis of the Eurofighter Typhoon. See above.
• 285 Sea Harrier FRS.1 (P.61-62) with 10 converted to FRS.2 and 80 new-build FRS.2s expected.
  • Except 90 F/A.2 were actually built and 175 FRS.1s were rebuilt to this standard.
  • And because the "Big Wing" Harrier is built for the RAF instead of the AV-8B the F/A.2 also has the "Big Wing", subject to it fitting the lifts on the Invincible class aircraft carriers.
  • Yak-38s could have been built instead of the Sea Harrier FRS.1, but @Martes says that the Soviets buy the Sea Harrier FRS.1 ITTL rather than vice versa.
  • The Soviets didn't have a direct equivalent to the Sea Harrier F/A.2 IOTL, but they did have the Yak-141 and the UK may buy 265 of them instead of 90 new Sea Harrier F/A.2s and 175 rebuilt Sea Harrier FRS.1.
• 880 Hawk T.1 (P.62) including 5 pre-production aircraft and 440 modified to Hawk T.1A standard for secondary air defence duties.
  • However, they UK might built 880 Aero L-39s instead.
  • It can't build any of the Polish, Romanian or Yugoslavian equivalents to the Hawk, because they were well after the Hawk in development, while the first L-39 flew 6 years before the first Hawk.

As in the original message, I'm not going back to 1960 like I did with warships because the UK spent a larger proportion of GNP on Defence from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Therefore, aircraft like the Gnat, Jet Provost, Lightning, Victor Mk 2 and Vulcan Mk 2 wouldn't have been built in five times the quantities.

The UK won't build Soviet equivalents instead of the above in @Martes' version of TTL (e.g. MiG-21s instead of the Lightning) because his POD isn't early enough to allow it. It will be in my version though, because the POD is the 1945 General Election.

As in the original message, the only RAF combat aircraft that I'm making an exception of is the first-generation Harrier (GR.1 to T.4) of which 735 were built (590 single-seat and 145 two-seat) plus prototypes of which there were 8 IOTL (6 single-seat and 2 two-seat). That's because it entered service with the RAF at the end of the 1960s but remained in production for it into the 1980s.

It won't be possible to build Yak-38s for the RAF instead of the first-generation Harriers because it was more than half-a-decade behind the Harrier in development. Although, they could have built Yak-36s instead of the Harrier. However, @Martes already has the Soviets buying Harriers instead of Yaks 36 and 38 instead of vice versa.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well, the Tornado was way late in terms of delivery. Capability-wise, it might be closer to the MiG-31.

It wasn't that late in terms of delivery.

I'd expect that a big long-range interceptor would get developed in the 1970s. Might not be as physically huge as the Foxbat, but it'd still be on the same size as a Tomcat or F-4.

Red UK can't buy 170 Phantoms ITTL so it may buy MiG-25 instead. Except the MiG-25 isn't carrier capable so it's either P.1154 or a British Phantom-substitute powered by two Speys.

Right, because the UK had dropped the idea of strategic bombers in the 1960s.

But in either timeline we'd be talking about here, that didn't happen.

This is the next paragraph, which you didn't quote.

Except, that's the serious answer and this isn't a serious thread. So alright then, Tu22Ms in the 1970s and Tu160s in the 1980s.

They gave up strategic bombers in the 1960s because they were too vulnerable to a first strike and their place was taken by SSBNs. If anything they'd be even more vulnerable ITTL because NATO IRBMs would be deployed in France and the Low Countries. There may be a requirement for some Tu-22Ms and Tu-160s as anti-shipping aircraft, but not as strategic bombers.

I'd agree that the Red UK would build some relatively small bombers to take weapons to France and the US part of Germany.

IMO, more than some.

 

[Martes]

I think Martes wants to imagine a world where the UK is equipped with Soviet equipment, rather than a world where the UK adopts a political stance aligned with the USSR but maintains independent industry. Or at least that's the impression that the ship designs give - they're adapting Soviet designs to carry some British kit, rather than (as I think more likely) replacing the relatively limited American and Australian kit on British ships with British or Soviet kit.

It is actually a mix of both, and I am in fact moving from the first to the second.

My start point was - any technology or equipment sourced from the US/NATO should be replaced by USSR/WP-made, because it was very easy to mentally replace those things.

But it is correct that in case of totally different budget policy and much less central control from Moscow than from there was from Washington IRL (for reasons we outlined some time ago), there would be a green light to much of the projects that were otherwise cut or cancelled and the main task is separate what would be imported from what could or would be locally developed, and what would be preferred and ultimately enter service.

As to the ships, you would notice that I am slowly moving from "repaint a Soviet ship" to "Soviet/British equipment on British/combined hull", but what I want to retain from Soviet designs is their size and quantity of installed systems/capabilities. I.e. the key feature of the mix between Kara and Bristol I posted above is that this ship is double-ended from the start and includes two Sea Dart systems. Likewise the range and combat capabilities of various systems, like the difference in range between the Ikara and RPK, Limbo and RBU, adoption of ultra-heavy long-range strike missiles, etc.

 

[Martes]

Concerning the posts about aircraft - it will take me some time to process them, so I apologize for the possible delay in replies.

 

[Scott Kenny]

[Tornado] wasn't that late in terms of delivery.

Except it started as the AFVG... That's where I'm carrying the "late" delivery from.

Red UK can't buy 170 Phantoms ITTL so it may buy MiG-25 instead. Except the MiG-25 isn't carrier capable so it's either P.1154 or a British Phantom-substitute powered by two Speys.

I may use "MiG-25" as shorthand for "long range BARCAP type interceptor", but I could see the RedUK buying actual Foxbats for the RAF. If the timing works out, I could see RedUK buying Flankers instead. In either case, we're also talking about some 650 airframes just for the RedRAF.

But RedRN does need a Phantom equivalent in the 1960s. Probably a British Phantom-substitute running on two Speys, because I just cannot see the P1154RN working out. ~250 airframes here.

IMO, more than some.

Yeah, more likely a small number of different designs for A-4 class nuclear-strike bombers, but large quantities of each design. Could just be an epic shitton of Harriers, I suppose...

 

[Martes]

I may use "MiG-25" as shorthand for "long range BARCAP type interceptor"

Yes, it would be only right to extend this principle to all systems and technologies. "*name* or similar system"

Could just be an epic shitton of Harriers, I suppose...

Sea Harrier Fencibles?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sea Harrier Fencibles?

Eh, maybe.

I was honestly looking at the early RAF Harrier avionics fits and missing a terrain-following radar which would be needed in Europe for probably half the year: Late Fall, Winter, and early spring bad weather.

So those 1950s/early 60s "A-4s" might get replaced with Su-24s in the 1970s.

 

[Martes]

Eh, maybe.

I was honestly looking at the early RAF Harrier avionics fits and missing a terrain-following radar which would be needed in Europe for probably half the year: Late Fall, Winter, and early spring bad weather.

Considering the Harrier skill requirements it's doubtful, although I did think that DDR air force could plan something like that with their Harriers.

Concerning aircraft in general, there are two key points.

1. Localized production. From the very beginning I considered any Soviet design would be produced in Britain locally, with British avionics and very possibly - engines. So when thinking of Phantom replacement, there is nothing to prevent a Mig-23A airframe with Spey engine or something similar, because a "variable-geometry carrier based fighter" was, apparently, considered for CVA-01 anyway. That's why I gave them British style nomenclature and assigned producing companies.

2. Design convergence. Similar requirements may produce very similarly looking aircraft. AFVG turns into Su-24 seamlessly, and all it may take is a routine visit of HS delegation to Moscow or Sukhoi to London.

 

[Martes]

Nor we should consider the Soviet catalog immutable, because with British input much may change.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I'm not going back to 1960 like I did with warships because the UK spent a larger proportion of GNP on Defence from the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Therefore, aircraft like the Gnat, Jet Provost, Lightning, Victor Mk 2 and Vulcan Mk 2 wouldn't have been built in five times the quantities.

The only RAF combat aircraft that I'm making an exception of is the first-generation Harrier (GR.1 to T.4) of which 735 were built (590 single-seat and 145 two-seat) plus prototypes of which there were 8 IOTL (6 single-seat and 2 two-seat). That's because it entered service with the RAF at the end of the 1960s but remained in production for it into the 1980s.

I'm adding the Nimrod to the list of exceptions.

• The number built would be quintupled to 245.
  • 230 MR.1s to equip the equivalent of 30 LRMP squadrons at 6 UE. See below.
    • And.
  • 15 would be R.1s for electronic reconnaissance.
• All other things being equal.
  • 170 MR.1s were converted to MR.2s to equip the equivalent of 22½ squadrons at 6 UE.
  • 55 MR.1s were converted to AEW.3s.
    • And.
  • 5 would be written off before they could be converted.
• Except, all other things would not be equal.
  • I think there wouldn't be a Mason Defence Review of late 1974/early 1975 as we know it.
  • As a result the LRMP force was maintained at the equivalent of 30 squadrons at 6 UE.
  • All 225 surviving MR.1s were rebuilt to MR.2 standard instead of 170.
• Another thing that wouldn't be equal is the number of squadrons and the number of aircraft per squadron.
  • Before the 1957 Defence Review most LRMP squadrons had a UE of 8 aircraft.
    • E.g. at 31.03.56 there were 4 Neptune, 11 Shackleton and 3 Sunderland squadrons for a total of 18 LRMP squadrons.
    • The Neptune & Shackleton squadrons and the Sunderland squadron in FEAF had a UE of 8 aircraft.
    • The 2 Sunderland squadrons in Coastal Command had a UE of 5 aircraft.
    • There was also a flight of 4 Lincolns in Aden and a weather reconnaissance squadron with 5 Hastings Met.1s in Coastal Command.
    • That made a total UE of 147 aircraft in 19 squadrons and one flight.
  • After the 1957 Defence Review LRMP squadrons had an Average UE of 6 aircraft.
    • E.g. there were 11 squadrons in 1964 with a total UE of 66 Shackletons.
    • The squadron at Aden had 4, the squadron in FEAF had 8 and the other 9 had 6 each.
    • I think the reduction in the number of aircraft per squadron was so that more squadron "numberplates" could be retained.
  • I think there'd be no 1957 Defence review ITTL and by 1964 there'd be a total UE of 160 Shackletons in 20 squadrons with 8 aircraft each and no independent flights.
  • The equivalent of 30 squadrons of Nimrods with 6 aircraft each for a total UE of 180 aircraft.
  • I think there'll be 20 squadrons of Nimrods with 9 aircraft each for a total UE of 180 aircraft.

That leaves no airframes to be converted to AEW.3s and avoids spending five times the amount of money on the Nimrod AEW project. However, the Red RAF can't buy 35 Boeing Sentries either. What the Red RAF buys instead of these aircraft and the Shackleton AEW.2 has been discussed earlier in the thread.

The Soviet substitute is the Il-38 May. However, I think the Red RAF will still want the Nimrod because of its faster transit times, which AIUI from "Nimrod's Genesis" is why it wanted a jet instead of a turboprop in the first place.

 

[Martes]

A bit of a side question, but in those circumstances - how far the production and service life of Buccaneers can be stretched?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Except it started as the AFVG... That's where I'm carrying the "late" delivery from.

FWIW I knew already.

I also knew that the Tornado was at one time known as the MRCA-75 because it was supposed to enter service in 1975.

As the Red UK is spending a lot more on defence it can throw more resources at the Tornado ITTL. Two-and-a-half times more than the combined total on IDS IOTL and five times more on the IDS ITTL.

E.g. they can build more prototypes and pre-production aircraft to complete the development flying sooner. IOTL 15 plus one STA were built, but early on a grand total of 43 plus STAs were planned. There's enough money to build that many aircraft ITTL.

I may use "MiG-25" as shorthand for "long range BARCAP type interceptor", but I could see the RedUK buying actual Foxbats for the RAF. If the timing works out, I could see RedUK buying Flankers instead. In either case, we're also talking about some 650 airframes just for the RedRAF.

That's fine by me. Although the Red RAF will probably want British engines and the Soviet Air Force may want them too as they'll probably be better.

But Red RN does need a Phantom equivalent in the 1960s. Probably a British Phantom-substitute running on two Speys, because I just cannot see the P1154RN working out. ~250 airframes here.

I agree.

Yeah, more likely a small number of different designs for A-4 class nuclear-strike bombers, but large quantities of each design. Could just be an epic shitton of Harriers, I suppose...

I've got about 720 GR.1 to T.4 including some T.4s for the RN and 550 "Big Wing" Harriers on order or planned.

Summary of Red RAF squadrons at 31.03.90 by role and type.

• 55 Fighter squadrons including 10 with the TASMO Force.
  • 35 Tornado ADV squadrons including 10 with the TASMO Force.
  • 20 Phantom squadrons - which they can't have - either MiG-25s or a British Phantom substitute.
• 85 Ground Attack and Reconnaissance squadrons (70 GA and 15 R).
  • 55 Tornado GR.1 squadrons (45 GA and 10 R).
  • 15 Jaguar GR.1 squadrons (10 GA and 5 R).
  • 15 Harrier GA squadrons.
• 10 Maritime Strike squadrons with Buccaneer S.2s in the TASMO Force.
• 20 Maritime Patrol squadrons (plus detachments equal to 2½ squadrons) with Nimrod MR.2s.
• 40 Reserve squadrons to be formed from the Operational Conversion Units and Tactical Weapons Units.
  • 5 Tornado ADV squadrons to be formed from the OCUs.
  • 5 Phantom squadrons to be formed from the OCUs - which they can't have - see above.
  • 5 Tornado GR squadrons to be formed from the TWCUs.
  • 20 Hawk T.1A squadrons to be formed from the TWUs.
  • 5 Nimrod MR.2 squadrons to be formed from the OCUs.
• 5 AEW squadrons - with 35 Boeing E-3 Sentries - which they can't have - see the discussion on the alternatives earlier in the thread.
• 5 Electronic Reconnaissance squadrons with Nimrod R.1s and Canberras.
• 15 Tanker squadrons.
  • 5 Victor K.2 squadrons.
  • 5 VC.10 K.2 and K.3 squadrons.
  • 5 Tristars as tanker-transports - which they can't have - they may have the nearest Illushin airliner to the Tristar ITTL.
• 25 Fixed-Wing Transport squadrons.
  • 5 VC.10 C.1 squadrons.
  • 20 Antonov An-12 squadrons instead of 20 C-130K Hercules squadrons.
• 35 Helicopter Transport squadrons.
  • 10 Chinook HC.1 squadrons - which they can't have IOTL - maybe WG.11s.
  • 10 Puma HC.1 squadrons - which they can't have - maybe Westland's OTL rival to the Puma or more Mi-4s or more Bristol 214s.
  • 10 Wessex HC.2 squadrons - which they can't have - maybe licence built Mi-4s or Bristol 214s.
  • 5 composite squadrons.
• 15 Helicopter SAR squadrons with Sea King HAR.3s and Wessex HAR.2s - which they can't have.
  • Maybe Mi-4s or Bristol 214s instead of Wessex
    • And.
  • Whatever the Red RN buys instead its Sea Kings instead of the RAF's Sea Kings.
• 25 Miscellaneous squadrons.
  • 10 Communications squadrons.
  • 5 Calibration squadrons with Andover E.3s.
  • 5 Target-Towing squadrons with Canberras.
  • 5 Training squadrons with Canberras.
• 5 Bloodhound SAM squadrons.
  • There were 10 squadrons at 30.06.89 which were reduced to 5 by merging pairs of squadrons.
  • So the total number of flights on 31.03.90 was the same as on 30.06.89.

Grand total 340 squadrons which will require about 450,000 airmen and women. However, all other things being equal there were plenty of unemployed to conscript and the proportion of women can be increased.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A bit of a side question, but in those circumstances - how far the production and service life of Buccaneers can be stretched?

The last Buccaneer was delivered in 1977 IOTL and given enough money production could have been continued indefinitely ITTL. Don't know how long the service life can be stretched.

IOTL there were 5 Buccaneer squadrons (3 overland strike and 2 maritime strike) and the OCU in 1980.

• That include one maritime strike squadron formed in 1979 with Ark Royal's Buccaneers.
• However, that squadron had a short lived existence because the aircraft's metal fatigue problems meant one of the 5 squadrons had to be disbanded.
• The new Maritime Strike squadron drew the short straw and disbanded in August 1980.
• The UK based overland strike squadrons became a maritime squadron in July 1982, bringing the total up to 2.
• The other 2 were in Germany and converted to the Tornado IDS in July 1983 and March 1984 respectively.

ITTL multiply the above by five.

Except with the cost reductions that I predict due to the economies of scale there'd be enough money to keep the Buccaneer production line open after 1977 making attrition replacements. Then there would be enough aircraft to avoid the disbanding of half the Maritime Strike Force and there would be 15 squadrons in this role instead of 10 from July 1982.

Also the RAF's Buccaneer maritime strike squadrons took the place of the Buccaneer squadrons aboard the strike carriers. As you want the RN to have some CVA.01s ITTL they'd be RN squadrons rather than RAF squadrons.

Similarly, the 10 TASMO Force fighter squadrons that I mentioned in Post 225 took the place of fighter squadrons aboard the strike carriers. As you want the RN to have some CVA.01s ITTL they'd be RN squadrons rather than RAF squadrons too.

Also, the 5 AEW squadrons with Boeing Sentries were formed on Shackleton AEW.2s in 1972 took the place of the Gannet AEW.3s on the strike carriers. As you want the RN to have some CVA.01s ITTL they'd be RN squadrons rather than RAF squadrons as well and be equipped with a British carrier capable AEW aircraft like the HS. Brough P.139. They'd take the pace of the OTL Nimrod AEW.3 programme. Although in this case there might still be a requirement for some shore-based AEW aircraft too so we may still see 35 Soviet equivalents to the Sentry being purchased ITTL.

 

[Martes]

could be continued indefinitely ITTL.

And so be it

I - mistakenly - thought they were retired in late 70's with the Ark Royal, but it was only the end of production, and even IRL they were in service until 1994.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

In the above I suggested taking the personnel strength of the OTL HM Forces and multiplying it by five.
Or.
Taking the personnel strength of the OTL Soviet Forces and dividing it by five.

The same source said that the UK had a total of 311,650 active duty personnel in 1989 as follows:



Multiply the above by five and the total ITTL is 1,558,250 as follows:



The same source said that the USSR had a total of 5,096,000 active duty personnel in 1988 as follows:



Divide that by five and the total is 1,019,320 as follows:



The Air Defence Forces, Air Force and Strategic Rocket Force have a total of
250,753 active duty personnel or 24.60%​

 

[Martes]

Supposedly, the final count should be somewhere between these numbers (~1.2mil?), and possibly at the expense of the army?

 

[Martes]

An additional side note - seems Type 22 frigates had US made sonar systems.

Was something wrong with sonar development in the UK in the 70s, or they just preferred an off-the-shelf system?

UPD: not sonar, electronic warfare system. Still, same question - wasn't there a local version?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I've got about 720 GR.1 to T.4 including some T.4s for the RN and 550 "Big Wing" Harriers on order or planned.

Thing is, the short range nuclear strike squadrons are really in addition to the existing forces as I see it. This is a mission that NATO-UK didn't need, but RedUK would.

So we'd need even more "Harriers" than that. Probably some 300-500 based in England to strike across the channel into France and Denmark/Netherlands.

Though this could be a bunch of Su-24s or TFR-equipped Buccaneers as well.

An additional side note - seems Type 22 frigates had US made sonar systems.

Was something wrong with sonar development in the UK in the 70s, or they just preferred an off-the-shelf system?

I suspect that it was yet another case of the boffins were constantly fiddling with the UK sonar and kept saying it wasn't ready yet. UK industry was notorious for that. Constantly trying for "perfect" when "good enough to do the job" is what was needed.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Thing is, the short range nuclear strike squadrons are really in addition to the existing forces as I see it. This is a mission that NATO-UK didn't need, but Red UK would.

So we'd need even more "Harriers" than that. Probably some 300-500 based in England to strike across the channel into France and Denmark/Netherlands.

Did you see the 15 Jaguars squadrons? They can also do short-range nuclear strike. ITTL there were 40 squadrons in the late 1970s, but 25 converted to Tornado IDS during the 1980s.

Having written that, the Red UK's plan for World War III may be to invade the North of France in support of the Soviet-led invasion of West Germany. In that case another 1,000 Harrier GR.1 to T.4 instead of an equal number of Jaguars may be better as they can cross the channel and operate from improvised forward air bases faster than the Jaguars.

Also ITTL the Red UK's plan for World War III may include invading Norway in support of the USSR instead of the OTL plan which was to reinforce the Norwegians. They'll also want to take the Faroe Islands and Iceland to clear the already compromised ITTL GIUK Gap.

Though this could be a bunch of Su-24s or TFR-equipped Buccaneers as well.

Although I dislike the expression "bunch of" as much as I despise "target" as a verb, "load out", "swap out", "stood up", "multiple", "sport's" when they mean "sport" or "sport's" and mathematics abbreviated to "math" instead of "math's" - did you notice the 55 squadrons of Tornado IDS (plus 5 to be formed on mobilisation) and 10 squadrons of Buccaneers in the list?

• The former were Su-24 analogues, which replaced some of the Jaguars, the overland-strike Buccaneers and the surviving Vulcans.
• At its peak there would have been 25 Buccaneer squadrons in the Red RAF of which 10 were maritime strike (taking the place of the RN Buccaneer squadrons) and 15 were overland strike squadrons (replacing the Canberra and TSR.2).
• The overland-strike Buccaneers were the standard RAF version of OTL, but ITTL there's the money to have them built with a TFR.

Fellow children of the 1970s may be familiar with the phrase "four bananas make a bunch and so do any more" which I'm rounding to five as it makes the arithmetic simpler.

• 11 bunches of Tornado IDS with a twelfth to be formed on mobilisation.
• 2 bunches of Buccaneers.
• 3 bunches of Jaguars.
• 3 bunches of Harriers.

That's 20 "bunches of" and as a banana tree only produces one bunch during its life, that's 20 banana trees worth or one copse.

I suspect that it was yet another case of the boffins were constantly fiddling with the UK sonar and kept saying it wasn't ready yet. UK industry was notorious for that. Constantly trying for "perfect" when "good enough to do the job" is what was needed.

I've not heard about Type 22 having US-made sonars. I thought sonar was one piece of equipment that was always British. That doesn't mean that @Martes' statement isn't true.

It could also be because the UK was making them in smaller quantities and it was more cost effective to build a few medium size batches rather than several small batches. However, ITTL the larger quantities being built allow a few large batches or many small batches.

However, I suspect that rather than buying American they'd keep making the old British sonar until the new British sonar was ready. E.g. with radars the Type 965 radar was kept in production for 5-10 years too long and aught to have been replaced by a radar in the Type 1022 class about 5-10 years earlier. That's something that aught to happen ITTL. Then in turn we have Type 1022 replaced by Type 1030 in the first half of the 1980s.

 

[Martes]

Thing is, the short range nuclear strike squadrons are really in addition to the existing forces as I see it. This is a mission that NATO-UK didn't need, but RedUK would.

IIRC South Africa had Buccaneers exactly for that kind of mission.

I've not heard about Type 22 having US-made sonars. I thought sonar was one piece of equipment that was always British. That doesn't mean that @Martes' statement isn't true.

No, you are right, and I messed everything up.

It is also said[22] that they carried the US Classic Outboard electronic warfare equipment – SSQ-72 with SLR-16 and SRD-19 – which would have demanded a further large increase in the size of the operations room.

[22] N Friedman, World Naval Weapon Systems 1991/92 (Annapolis 1991), p531. There is even a photograph showing Outboard antennae on a Type 22.

I fell to the trap of apparently similar designation, it's actually EW, not sonar system.

Corrected the original post.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IIRC South Africa had Buccaneers exactly for that kind of mission.

Yes. They had 16 and wanted to buy another 20. However, the First Wilson Government came to power and blocked the sale. It wouldn't even allow the SAAF to buy a replacement for the aircraft that crashed on its delivery flight.

I can't find he proof for it, but I believe that South Africa wanted to buy a long list of British military equipment in the early-to-middle 1970s but the Heath Government or the Second Wilson Government blocked the sale. I think they said 20 Nimrods and 10 Buccaneers which I think may be a typo for 10 Nimrods and 20 Buccaneers. However, I can't find the notes I made and it wasn't in the book that I thought I'd read it in.

However, so were the RAF's 3 overland-strike squadrons of Buccaneers and AFIAK the avionics of the SAAF Buccaneers was the same as the RAF's Buccaneers that did the same job.

No, you are right, and I messed everything up.

It is also said[22] that they carried the US Classic Outboard electronic warfare equipment – SSQ-72 with SLR-16 and SRD-19 – which would have demanded a further large increase in the size of the operations room.

[22] N Friedman, World Naval Weapon Systems 1991/92 (Annapolis 1991), p531. There is even a photograph showing Outboard antennae on a Type 22.

I fell to the trap of similar designation, it's actually EW, not sonar system.

Fair enough.

However, it does raise a topic that I've been meaning to write about for a week or so. That is the Red UK won't have access to US technology from your POD in the late 1950s and my POD of the 1945 General Election.

Specifically, solid-state electronic components. Your Red UK won't have access to US integrated circuits & microprocessors and my Red UK won't have access to them and US transistors. AIUI the USSR and its satellites were well behind the US and is allies in this form of technology throughout the Cold War.

E.g. when the MiG-25 that was flown to Japan was examined it was found to have lots of little valves instead of solid-state electronics. However, that might have been because they impervious to the electro-magnetic pulse.

 

[Martes]

Specifically, solid-state electronic components. Your Red UK won't have access to US integrated circuits & microprocessors and my Red UK won't have access to them and US transistors. AIUI the USSR and its satellites were well behind the US and is allies in this form of technology throughout the Cold War.

Yes, Soviet transistor technology was somewhat behind, but there were both locally developed versions and copies of US processors. There was, as I heard, a heated discussion somewhere around 70s, whether to proceed with development of local processor architecture, or fully copy the IBM one, and that resulted in killing of the local in favour of straight IBM copies. As a rule of a thumb, probably, it can be assumed that there is a lag of a generation (or two?) in processor production. And the cumbersome central planning bureaucratic process of approving a new model, signing it into production, etc, made everything slower.

FWIW, for the Mig-25 the Russian sources cite mostly operating temperature and other environmental conditions at high speed and high altitude as considerations for the choice of valve technology, but that's a result of a very quick search. Possibly, EMP resistance was factored in.

 

[Martes]

Operational considerations, a very rough outline. Feel free to add/correct.

There are three main vectors around which the RedUK would form the deployment strategy -

1. North Atlantic, against the US.
2. Cross-Channel, against France/Netherlands/West Germany.
3. Overseas, colonial and trade route control, also mainly against the US and local actors.

And two basic scenarios for each, namely full WW3 planning and routine Cold War operations.

For the full war, the plan would probably be to completely cut the US-Europe route, GIUK gap, take Faroes and Jan Mayen, blockade and eventually take possession of Iceland, knock the French navy and naval bases out, possibly land an army in Netherlands and support the WP offensive.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This isn't a correction. It's some background information.

In the late 1940s British defence planners envisaged three types of war.

1. Hot Wars - High Intensity Global Wars - I.e. World War III.
2. Warm Wars - High Intensity Regional Wars - E.g. Korea and Suez.
3. Cold Wars - Low Intensity Regional Wars - E.g. the Malayan Emergency, Kenya, Cyprus.

The UK was to be able to fight "Wars of All Temperatures". Except, IOTL HMG thought that the economic burden of being able to fight a Hot War was unjustifiable so it was abandoned in the 1954 and 1957 Defence Reviews.

Then we got the "East of Suez" strategy where nuclear deterrence would prevent Hot Wars from breaking out and the much reduced HM Forces would be re-structured to fight Warm and Cold Wars in outside the NATO area. The idea was to deter Cold & Warm Wars from happening in the first place and to stop the the Cold & Warm Wars that did break out from escalating into Warm & Hot Wars.

Before @uk 75 pipes in, the cost of that was found to be too great too resulting in the abandoning of the "East of Suez" in the Healey defence cuts of 1967-68 (not 1965-66) and the Mason Defence Review of 1974-75. It also helped that the world "East of Suez" seemed to becoming a less volatile place, e.g. Indonesia changed sides when Sukarno was overthrown and the ex-colonies were developing armed forces of their own so they needed less help from the UK.

However, I think the Red UK could accept lower living standards so they would retain what remained of the Hot War capability following the 1954 cuts meaning that there was no 1957 Defence Review as we know it.

 

[Martes]

From naval standpoint, the basic deployment scheme seems that the CVA-01 carriers are to be deployed mostly in North Atlantic (kind of Home Fleet), and intended to provide long range strike/convoy hunt capabilities towards the American continent, while Escort Cruisers head task forces operating around the globe, shadowing USN carrier groups and providing navy presence in regional conflicts.

Same considerations would be probably appropriate for RAF, and some kind of operational deployment picture has to be imagined for units RAF/RN never had IRL - like the long range supersonic bombers or Oscar-style SSGNs. Do they operate alone? In groups? Coordinate with regional task forces?

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

In addition to war planning, what interests me in particular is the image of background friction between RedUK and US, France, Iceland, etc., in conditions that do not reach actual war. The Cod wars, for example, the day-to-day cross-channel interactions, that sort of thing.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

A point that @uk 75 made about my version of the TL is that the UK received a huge amount of military aid from the USA and to a lesser extend Canada between the Korean and Suez Wars.

That's not just the equipment that was provided like the Sabre fighters, Neptune LRMP aircraft and Whirlwind helicopters. They also paid for a lot of the equipment that was built in the UK for HM Forces and export. IIRC the Centurion tank's and Hunter fighter's biggest customer was the US DoD through MDAP.

It's not getting any of that ITTL. However, it may not need it ITTL.

AIUI before the Korean War the UK was preparing to fight a war in 1957 which was dubbed, "The Year of Maximum Danger", but the Korean War led to the 3-Year 1951 Rearmament Programme which was to be completed during the 1954-55 Financial Year. This was because it was thought that the USSR was preparing to start World War III several years earlier than previously believed.

In my version of the TL the Red UK is a close ally of the USSR from May 1945 and will have a good idea of what the Soviet plans for world domination were. Therefore, no "Year of Maximum Danger" as we know it and no 1951 Rearmament Programme as we know it, no 1954 Defence Cuts as we know them and no 1957 Defence Review as we know it.

 

[Martes]

That's not just the equipment that was provided like the Sabre fighters, Neptune LRMP aircraft and Whirlwind helicopters. They also paid for a lot of the equipment that was built in the UK for HM Forces and export. IIRC the Centurion tank's and Hunter fighter's biggest customer was the US DoD through MDAP.

That's a rather interesting point. With POD (in my version) after Suez this aid will be received and it's possible even some of this produced equipment will end up not delivered, and probably transferred to the Army. But, of course, because the split and POD comes precisely in 1957, the 1957 Defense Review will be overwhelmingly different.