Warsaw Pact Royal Navy

[Martes]

It probably is a somewhat strange topic, more of a mental and visual experiment than anything else (feel free to move it to artwork, if it's more appropriate there).

Please note:
What I have in mind is more or less a navy planning exercise. I want to compile something feasible on the basis of real plans, alternative inventory and setting certain geopolitical environment conditions to frame it. And the most basic question is - how would the Royal Navy look, if, for some completely irrelevant reason, Britain was playing for the Red team instead of Blue during the Cold War, starting around 1960.

The origins of the idea, though, were purely aesthetic, and driven by initial constraints placed by the current state of Sea Power computer game.

I really wanted to play with British ships. Alas, there are none.

But it is my impression that the Cold War era British design school, both industrial and military, was in most aspects closer to Soviet style than the US, and I technically could imagine that a sufficiently repainted Kara-class cruiser (project 1134b) looks somewhat close to overblown Type 23 or early variants of Type 43 destroyer

​

And that was the start point.

The problem was to justify this, so for the background I thought - what if the cooperation Britain had with the US was replaced by totally identical cooperation, but with the USSR?

Let's say following Suez crisis Britain packs and flips to the East. For the sake of stability, everything stays more or less the same - the Queen, the Parliament, the Lords (that slowly mutate into Central Committee), but in the result it becomes "an unsinkable red aircraft carrier in the middle of the Atlantic". Austerity stays for longer, and in the spirit of the Russian Reversal (in Soviet Britain the Navy economizes on you) the whole military gets a boost and (oh the irony) the overseas commitments that the US was so eager to take over are actually increased.

In short, it's something between a dream and a nightmare for a British admiral - you get what you want, but there is a price.

Then it went faster.

Frantically flipping through D.K. Brown's book, I drew a list of tentative names for ships, airplanes and systems in British service. So 1134b becomes Type 84 cruiser (as follow up for Type 82 Bristol), 1155 (Udaloy) - Type 24 frigate, and Kiev replaces Invincible on steroids. Harrier is still there (but uses Soviet weapons), but instead of Sea Kings there are now Ka-27s.

Harrier




Type 24


Mig-23 -> HS Harpy (RAF)


Mig-23A -> HS Harpy (RN)


Su-24MK -> Panavia (with DDR, of course) Condor​

Initially I thought I won't need two relatively similar ships, having already converted the Kara to a primary air-defense cruiser.

Historically, in the USSR, the Kresta-2 (1134A) came before the Kara (1134B), and Kara contained all kinds of additional systems and improvements.

But I am painting Britain, and a very special version of Britain at that, and the British logic dictates that having built several ships of the 1134B project, the Admiralty becomes acutely aware of the involved expenses and requires a smaller, more compact and economical variant, which cuts the close-range air defense and the towed array (because those are moved to the specialized ASW frigates) and results in smaller hull with much smaller crew.

This closely mirrors the story of Bristol and Type 42 destroyers in real world, so in our version of Britain the Kresta-2, sorry, the Type 44 Air Defense Destroyer, will be built after the Type 84, and carry the same electronics, missiles, etc., sans the removed capabilities.

I can imagine the discussions in stuffy London offices quite vividly, in that Sir Humphrey's drawl -

"We are building modern and spacious frigates, whatever we need those enormous cruisers for? Can't we have something... smaller? Oh, and you can put the radar on the funnel and cut the length, why on earth haven't you said so before?"

​

From operational standpoint, the Type 44 is a direct parallel of real-world Type 42, a ship built around a long-range air defense system, but with certain resemblance of Type 12 frigates I somehow like to imagine that in that reality the TV series Warship would have been filmed aboard several ships of this class.

​

Up to this point it was mostly repaints and shifting of weapon/sensor systems here and there.

Then I found that it's actually possible to edit the models, but I was too deep in this already, so I took the 1160 carrier and -

​

With this carrier replacing the CVA-01, I assume the 1143 (Kiev) would make a fitting alternative for the Escort Cruiser program, and of course in my version of Britain the ship would easily grow from 15kt to around 40, and would be developed in the same cooperation with Soviet counterparts, as the carrier above.

​

The hull is a combination between British and Soviet forms (forward half is purely enlarged Colossus, aft run is Soviet, as it's their engine group). The flare of the bow is increased in a provision for potential quick removal of the missile armament and replacement with a conventional flight deck with a ski-jump (fitted for, but not with). Artillery is removed, the fore turret replaced with an additional twin Bazalt (Sea Boar) launcher, bringing the broadside to 10 missiles, and aft turret replaced by SA-N-9 (Sea Arrow) missile containers. The S-300 (Sea Serpent) remains in place, just as Sea Dart on Invincible.

​

In - as I mentioned above - a case of Russian Reversal, this reality dictates an increase of East-of-Suez deployments, for which those ships, classified as "command cruisers" would be mostly dedicated, they would make a frequent and common sight in tropical waters - countering US carrier groups, delivering the will of the Queen and the Secretary General to the third world countries, before the inevitable showdown in the icy gray waters of South Atlantic.

 

[TsrJoe]

One for the 'what-if' forum perhaps ?

 

[Martes]

One for the 'what-if' forum perhaps ?

This is the Alternative History section, I thought?..

In any case, what I would have wanted to discuss here (apart from just showing the visuals) if there is any desire, of course, is the manner of application of Cold War era RN design and procurement logic to different technical base.

 

[Dilandu]

But it is my impression that the Cold War era British design school, both industrial and military, was in most aspects closer to Soviet style than the US, and I technically could imagine that a sufficiently repainted Kara-class cruiser (project 1134b) looks somewhat close to overblown Type 23 or early variants of Type 43 destroyer

Well, the Soviet shipbuilding school was developed on the foundation of Italian one.

 

[Martes]

Well, the Soviet shipbuilding school was developed on the foundation of Italian one.

Yes, although I meant not only shipbuilding, but a general approach to industrial design.

***

A careful look at the existing models, and a comparison with photos of real Soviet ships will reveal that the hulls are not that Soviet, actually.

​

For the Kara/Type 84 the upperworks and sensor suite definitely are, but the bow of the hull is very different, with different placement of anchors, rounder entry, wider forecastle - all this only reinforces the impression of a different ship.

The same applies to Kresta/Type 44:

​

It is relatively difficult to unsee this effect once you get used to it.

​

 

[Martes]

There is a question of a smaller frigate. As a purely stopgap measure, I made a quick conversion of the 1135 (Krivak):

​

But I seriously doubt it would be anything more than experimental setup - two air defense systems (short and medium range), ASW missiles and mortars, single gun facing aft, towed array with no helicopter - everything looks awkward about this ship. Working, but nevertheless awkward.

​

Now that I can edit the models, it is quite possible I may attempt to make some hybrid of her and the Leander, replacing aft weapon emplacements with an hangar and making different configurations for anti-submarine, anti-surface and artillery weapon sets, but it's still an open question. Other options include real Leander's hull with different system and sensor set or a further reduced Kresta.

 

[Avimimus]

Everything else aside - it is surprising how good the Mig-23 looks as a British naval design!

 

[Martes]

Everything else aside - it is surprising how good the Mig-23 looks as a British naval design!

Yes, looks absolutely natural

Brown writes there was some thought of separate development of swept-wing aircraft for CVA-01, and Mig-23 fits the bill perfectly in those circumstances.

I also reskinned the other airplanes from Orel's complement, the ASW/AEW P-42 and attack/EW Ko-45:

​

Both aircraft never went beyond project in USSR and look sufficiently British, but Harpy beats them all

​

 

[uk 75]

Enjoying the photo work.
There is of course a real world example of a hybrid British Soviet style Navy in the Navy of India. This came about because of India's position as a leading member of the Nonaligned Nations.
India is a key member of the Commonwealth.
After the debacle of Suez the Conservatives became disenchanted with the US and NATO. Encouraged by the Royal Family the new Prime Minister decided to move Britain to the Non Aligned nations which included Yugoslavia as well as several key members of the Commonwealth.
So your fleet can remain the Royal Navy.

 

[Martes]

Oh, of course I looked on the Indian style. It is a bit out of time frame (we are talking mostly about 60s-80s), though, mostly, because their most interesting ships in context of west-east convergence are relatively new, but I certainly keep them in mind.

So your fleet can remain the Royal Navy.

That I meant to be in any case. The idea was that all the social and bureaucratic system remains in place, with only some adjustments.

​

I even carefully placed the Royal arms where the Soviet crest had been on the models to emphasize this. The Soviet establishment was an enormous fan club of the British monarchy, after all.

But - different alignment, different party line, longer austerity, enormous military budgets to build all that. Close cooperation with DDR and Czechoslovakia (vs. West Germany and Italy as really was), and unlimited access to Soviet inventory.

Having Britain playing squarely for the Red team has interesting implications in itself, and that is one of the reasons I wanted to mirror US-UK cooperation with USSR-UK. Take, for example, the Harrier. The US is left without a working VSTOL aircraft, and the whole American amphibious doctrine has to be reworked, putting a big question mark on their LHDs. Moreover, it is now available both for the real Soviet Kievs and DDR army. So thinking which Soviet technologies or projects would interest Britain and which British technologies would benefit the block (and what, in turn, this will boost in the West) is another aspect of this experiment.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Wot the actual? I would have thought there should at least be SOME basis in fact in any theorem. No more likely than the Republic of Ireland allowing the soviet union/Russia in.

 

[Martes]

I can vividly imagine a lot of people would say the same when hearing an announcement of the sort on the radio

Although it seems to me that Suez had the potential to be a breaking point in virtually any direction, including this one, likeliness of this scenario is not the issue here. It is, after all, just a background image painted in broadest of strokes - it all started with "can I make those models - ships, planes, helicopters - to look like they were made in 60-70s Britain, for whatever reason it may have happened".

But the logical basis is very simple. In the discussed period there were two superpowers. We know how cooperation with one of them went. Let's try to see how it could have worked with the other. It's not that there were many alternative options.

It's about technical possibilities opened by the scenario. Think of it as a wargame exercise setting to analyze and explore.

 

[uk 75]

You should join these folks who will appreciate your efforts

Beyond The Sprues - Index

Beyond The Sprues - Index

beyondthesprues.com

 

[uk 75]

The excellent ideas and photo work are better in this thread

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forums/user-artwork-and-models.14/

 

[Martes]

You should join these folks who will appreciate your efforts

I posted it over on another modeling forum, but they know nothing about naval design and development and can only appreciate the pictures, unfortunately.

That's the problem with such projects - althistory forum dwellers generally lack knowledge of technical details, modelling show no interest in design process, gaming are concerned only with gameplay, technical look down on althistory experiments (although I am not sure I see the difference between "let's stretch the Centaur and fit F-18 there" from a neighbour thread and "let's mix it with Kiev" that I propose).

And I hoped to find here somebody to talk about technical intricacies for this framework. The 3D models serve as a design tool, they are here for the same purpose as plans - means of visualization. They are not the end point. How to better put it?.. I think with 3D models.

The excellent ideas and photo work are better in this thread

As I said in the very first line of the very first post, if the administrators consider it proper they can move it there.

Have I offended somebody by accident?

 

[uk 75]

Not offended.
I understand what you are trying to do. A bit similar to the Argentine thread here.
Exploring the technical aspects is worthwhile.
I am content to let the hopelessly impossible alt history side stand for that purpose.

 

[Martes]

A bit similar to the Argentine thread here.

Something like that. I checked several threads here before posting and thought it's not too much different, and supposed this is the place where a regular visitor would know what CVA-01 is and even possibly notice what exactly I changed in the Soviet 1160 carrier hull to make it look (almost) British

What I have in mind is more or less a navy planning exercise. I want to compile something feasible on the basis of real plans, alternative inventory and setting certain geopolitical environment conditions to frame it. Since it explicitly involves a period half a century ago I would suppose it's safe enough to play with. I even put that in the head post now.

 

[Martes]

I really feel I owe some additional explanation.

The books I have around me at the moment - Brown's "Rebuilding the Royal Navy", Childs' "The Age of Invincible", Friedman's "Post-war Naval Revolution", etc., are all full of woes, of cuts, of frustration.

It is abundantly clear that the US was not interested in Britain as a naval power. So, I thought, if Britain ought to have a substantial Cold War era navy, something should have been done differently.

The USSR, on the other hand, can provide Britain with exactly what was missing in real history - dropping on it's shoulders the imperial maritime responsibility that, combined with Soviet underwater and nuclear missile power would have created a credible counterweight to the US.

So no budget constraints, no East of Suez withdrawal, bottomless armory and a clearly defined purpose for the navy's existence.

All the Soviets had to do to get this was to leave the British social system alone. All Britain had to do was to change the alliance.

Look at this from Admiralty's perspective. Sure, it's a devil's bargain. But that's precisely the point.

 

[Martes]

Preliminary renderings of the Command Cruiser.
The weapons and sensors are not yet fitted.

I just noticed that even the Invincible was considered to mount 4 Exocet launchers at some point, so even here I feel being in line with the conceptual thinking.





The hull is hybrid form between enlarged lines of the Colossus (fore half) and Soviet project 1143 (aft):






A view on the embedded sonar dome:

​

She is large, but not so much when compared to the carrier:

​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is what Alternatehistory.com called ASB because it requires the intervention of Alien Space Bats to happen. That being written it would work better if you make the POD Thursday, 5th May 1945 instead of the Suez War.

That's the date of the 1945 General Election which IOTL the Labour Party won by a landslide. ITTL it still wins the election by a landslide but is hard-line socialist or outright communist and wins every subsequent election from 1950 to the end of the Cold War. However, it doesn't create a one-party state, due to being so popular that it doesn't need to. The House of Lords is eventually replaced by an elected second chamber. However, the monarchy is popular enough to resist the regular attempts to abolish it and the Government reluctantly says that King George VI and the Queen Elizabeth II are elected presidents in all but name due to always winning the referendums that were held to have the monarchy abolished.

It doesn't join CENTO, NATO, SEATO, the Common Market and Western European Union, but may still join the Council of Europe and European Broadcasting Union. Instead it joins the Warsaw Pact, Comecon and OIRT the East European equivalent to the EBU so the UK would regularly be humiliated in the Intervision Song Contest as well as the Eurovision Song Contest.

I don't see the TTL RN copying Soviet designs wholesale. I think it's more likely that they'd produce their own designs that incorporated as much British equipment as possible. The only occasions when it would "Buy Russian" are when domestic equipment was too expensive to develop and/or produce. That's likely to happen a lot less often ITTL than it did IOTL because the RN is larger so the R&D budgets are larger and the production runs are longer.

If anything it's going to be a NATO Red Navy rather than a Warsaw Pact Royal Navy because the Soviets will want to copy as much British Naval technology as possible. E.g. how to design an aircraft carrier, sonars, radars, information processing systems, data links and gas turbines for aircraft & ships.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If anything it's going to be a NATO Red Navy rather than a Warsaw Pact Royal Navy because the Soviets will want to copy as much British Naval technology as possible. E.g. how to design an aircraft carrier, sonars, radars, information processing systems, data links and gas turbines for aircraft & ships.

Are there any pictures of Harriers, Sea Harriers and P.1154s in Soviet Naval Aviation colours around? I can see the Soviet Navy wanting to buy them instead of the Yak-36 and Yak-38 or at least to build ALT-versions of those aircraft designed around the Pegasus or BS.100. Maybe the Yak-141 would be a joint UK-USSR project.

 

[Foo Fighter]

cannot see the security organisations allowing anything like this which is why, frankly, it is a non starter.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

cannot see the security organisations allowing anything like this which is why, frankly, it is a non starter.

I agree that it's ASB, but it doesn't stop it being fun.

Plus it changes the Cold War a lot. NATO's weakened by the withdrawal of British forces from Germany & Eastlant and the presence of a technologically advanced industrialised nation that's armed to the teeth (the communist UK) between Continental Europe & North America.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

ITTL Westland has to build Mil helicopters under licence because it can't get the OTL licences on Sikorsky helicopters. The closest equivalents being as follows.

• The Mi-1 instead of the WS-51 Dragonfly.
• The Mi-4 instead of the WS-55 Whirlwind.
• The Mi-6 instead of the WS-56 Westminster.
• The Mi-8 instead of the WS-58 Wessex.
  • And.
• The Mi-8 instead of the WS-61 Sea King.

Though some of the Mil helicopters were a few years to several behind the Sikorsky helicopters that they’re substitutes for. It may not be possible to substitute the Mi-1 for the WS-51 in which case Westland builds Bristol Sycamores. Similarly, it might not be possible to substitute the Mi-4 for some of the Whirlwinds. I thought of the Ka 25 instead of the Sea King, but the Mil 8 looks closer to it.

 

[Martes]

cannot see the security organisations allowing anything like this

De Gaulle quit NATO, and nobody could stop him, as far as I remember.

Are there any pictures of Harriers, Sea Harriers and P.1154s in Soviet Naval Aviation colours around? I can see the Soviet Navy wanting to buy them instead of the Yak-36 and Yak-38 or at least to build ALT-versions of those aircraft designed around the Pegasus or BS.100. Maybe the Yak-141 would be a joint UK-USSR project.

Harrier in Soviet livery is absolutely in my plans (and, possibly East German as well), but I want to finish the Command Cruiser model first. It's a bit more complicated than the large carrier (pseudo-CVA-01), because the base model is extremely messy.
Quite ironically, we know Yak-141 ended up in the hands of Lockheed-Martin in 1991, if I recall correctly, so it became a kind-of-joint project after all, but that's another story.

better if you make the POD Thursday, 5th May 1945 instead of the Suez War.

I am not sure it would go so well with Stalin still in place, and I wanted to have some base of real post-war projects developed independently on both sides, because I wanted to make as much use as possible of existing (i.e. modelled) equipment.

Basically, I had several thought vectors that converged into this concept.

First is Brown's book and others, which lists all admiralty wanted but ultimately denied to do.
Second, the game resources, although you would note that I began to alter hulls the moment it became technically possible.
Third is an impression, fed by either documentary reels or period movies/series, that British reality of the 60-70s, say, had a very Soviet look and feel. Similarly looking cities, cars, furniture, nationalizations, austerity that I already mentioned, etc, etc, etc. Consider this as a movie setting, if you want - Philby is M, Blunt is Queen's Secretary, everything is the same, but a little bit different. The dystopian side is there, but it's subtle, creeping and unfelt by most. MI-5 is working overtime, people disappear, Ireland is a perpetual source of trouble and American submarines smuggle weapons into Irish coves. All that and more.

"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 agree that it's ASB, but it doesn't stop it being fun.

Plus it changes the Cold War a lot.

Yes, yes, that's exactly what I am talking about!
France is probably hard back, just the moment it realizes what's going on.

The Mi-8 instead of the WS-61 Sea King.

At the moment, it's Ka-27 It's more compact and fits into smaller hangars.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Plus it changes the Cold War a lot. NATO's weakened by the withdrawal of British forces from Germany & Eastlant and the presence of a technologically advanced industrialised nation that's armed to the teeth (the communist UK) between Continental Europe & North America.

Maybe the US bases in the UK were replaced by Soviet bases. On the naval side this means a Red Navy squadron of SSBNs at Holy Loch instead of the USN SSBN squadron along with AV-MF aircraft, attack submarines and surface warships forward deployed to the UK. The Soviet Navy would have access to Britain's naval bases around the world. E.g. Malta would be the main base for the Mediterranean Squadron.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

De Gaulle quit NATO, and nobody could stop him, as far as I remember.

If I remember correctly France left the NATO command structure, but remained a member of NATO and definitely didn't go non-aligned or change sides completely, which is what you're suggesting the UK does.

 

[Arjen]

De Gaulle quit NATO

A myth that is repeated over and over.
Not. True.

 

[Martes]

If I remember correctly France left the NATO command structure, but remained a member of NATO and definitely didn't go non-aligned or change sides completely, which is what you're suggesting the UK does.

Still, if during Suez the USN and RN came to direct confrontation (which the US was ready for), much could have been on the table. But, again, I don't suggest to dwell on why, only on how.

 

[Martes]

@NOMISYRRUC , a practical question:

I assume that RN would be interested in large strike missiles - Basalt, Granit, etc. But I have to separate the fact that I like them from some practical considerations. Would they, given the chance, in your opinion? Was creating anything of the sort ever considered in real history?

​

 

[Martes]

Maybe the US bases in the UK were replaced by Soviet bases. On the naval side this means a Red Navy squadron of SSBNs at Holy Loch instead of the USN SSBN squadron along with AV-MF aircraft, attack submarines and surface warships forward deployed to the UK. The Soviet Navy would have access to Britain's naval bases around the world. E.g. Malta would be the main base for the Mediterranean Squadron.

As far down as South Georgia, surely. Joint observation base "Friendship" or something.

Canada goes to US, Australia is a tossup, I think. Whoever gets there first with presents.

I fully expect Falkands to happen in this scenario as well, but like everything - on steroids, because Argentina would be forcefully backed by DC.

Iceland becomes a kind of a frontline, and it's bad news for their cod.

And, as I see it, the Soviets would be mostly happy delegate purely naval, surface, seagoing aspect of the bloc on Britain, while maintaining air, missile and submarine forces. I.e. it's entirely possible that the only Kiev's there would be British escort/command cruisers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I am not sure it would go so well with Stalin still in place, and I wanted to have some base of real post-war projects developed independently on both sides, because I wanted to make as much use as possible of existing (i.e. modelled) equipment.

Stalin couldn't do anything about it. The UK goes communist by the will of the British people, not because the Red Army's occupying the place and helping the local communists rig elections & referendums like it was in Eastern Europe.

Plus I think he'd be overjoyed to trade British technology for Soviet oil and raw materials on favourable terms to the UK. It would be much easier than having to spy for it. E.g. easier access to British nuclear technology.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

At the moment, it's Ka-27 It's more compact and fits into smaller hangars.

But the Mi-8s range and payload are closer to the Sea Kings. I'm presuming the British still have the Wasp and the Lynx for ships that were too small for the Mi-8.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

@NOMISYRRUC , a practical question:

I assume that RN would be interested in large strike missiles - Basalt, Granit, etc. But I have to separate the fact that I like them from some practical considerations. Would they, given the chance, in your opinion? Was creating anything of the sort ever considered in real history?

I don't know because I don't know much about Soviet naval weaponry.

 

[Martes]

I don't know because I don't know much about Soviet naval weaponry.

Very broadly, as a category, I mean large, heavy, supersonic missiles that act as an interconnected group and designed for attacking CVBGs. Ranges about 300 miles, more or less sea-skimming.

 

[Martes]

I'm presuming the British still have the Wasp and the Lynx for ships that were too small for the Mi-8.

Yes, Wasps and Lynxes are there, although there may be some cooperation for the Lynx with Mil, at that point. Thanks for reminding, I thought the Lynx wasn't locally developed and didn't check.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

As far down as South Georgia, surely. Joint observation base "Friendship" or something.

Also in the Indian Ocean and Pacific. Which effectively means Singapore and before 1967 Aden.

Canada goes to US, Australia is a tossup, I think. Whoever gets there first with presents.

Australia joins the US camp as it did IOTL, so does New Zealand (as it did IOTL) and so does South Africa. So the UK and its TTL allies loose access to Simonstown in 1957 with your POD and 1945 with mine.

And, as I see it, the Soviets would be mostly happy delegate purely naval, surface, seagoing aspect of the bloc on Britain, while maintaining air, missile and submarine forces. I.e. it's entirely possible that the only Kiev's there would be British escort/command cruisers.

It's entirely possible that with the World's second largest naval power as an ally and access to Britain's naval bases the USSR would adopt the naval strategy that the West though it had in the real world.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Very broadly, as a category, I mean large, heavy, supersonic missiles that act as an interconnected group and designed for attacking CVBGs. Ranges about 300 miles, more or less sea-skimming.

I knew what you meant and I still don't know the answer because I don't know enough about the subject.

Does the USSR sell SLBMs to the UK as substitutes for Polaris and Trident?

 

[Martes]

Does the USSR sell SLBMs to the UK as substitutes for Polaris and Trident?

Definitely.
I meant this by "mirror cooperation". If US shared some kind of technology, it would be done by the Soviets here. If US got something, Soviets get it. That's starting assumptions.

Ascension island included for the space program.

 

[Martes]

It's entirely possible that with the World's second largest naval power as an ally and access to Britain's naval bases the USSR would adopt the naval strategy that the West though it had in the real world.

On that I would dwell a little more, because both vectors are possible.