Warsaw Pact Royal Navy

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

In which case the USN would come into direct confrontation with the MN too. Though in my version of your timeline there isn't a Suez War or not one as we know it.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Ignoring how such a situation (pro-Soviet communist UK) would be impossible, it would put the route across the Atlantic from the USA to Europe at extreme risk. If the balloon goes up in Europe getting the necessary reinforcements and heavy gear to West Germany could be almost impossible. Presence of US forces in Iceland would probably be untenable; the USSR's submarine force would now have easy access to the whole Atlantic.

Could there be UK-Soviet cooperation on the development of strategic bombers? A significant force, perhaps including Soviet aircraft, could be based in the UK and tasked with dissuading American involvement in "European affairs". The same sort of threat posed by the IOTL Tu-22M Backfires but that much closer. The UK's navy would naturally become a lot less focused on protecting convoys and instead be more "offensively minded" in the sense of being able to interdict any movement across the Atlantic. I'd expect some surface warships with heavy AShM batteries similar to Soviet designs.

Considering how much of a threat that island of theirs poses to NATO's prospects in WWIII, there might well have to be invasion plans drawn up to try to put the UK out of the fight as soon as possible. Of course, the odds are that the conflict would quickly turn into global thermonuclear war. At which point it will be hard to determine who the "winners" are among all the irradiated rubble.

Regardless of whether or not the cold war turns hot in this nightmare scenario, I'd expect the US to openly support the cause of the IRA and aid it in being as much of a headache to the Red UK as possible.

 

[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.

Some non-naval things to consider.

There's no British participation in the Berlin Airlift. The UK will try to join it's zone of occupation in Germany with the Soviet one to create a "Greater DDR". At the least there's a smaller West Berlin which only consists of the US and French sectors which will be separated by the former British Sector.

The UK would be supporting the communists in the Greek Civil War.

Further afield there is Palestine and the wider Middle East. Is the State of Israel still created? There's the British relationship with Egypt at one time in the 1950s there were 70,000 British military personnel in the country including 2 infantry divisions. Does the Suez War still happen? If it does, not as we know it. Then there is Jordan, Iraq, Aden, Kuwait and the Gulf States. How does a communist UK treat them?

Hong Kong is returned to China after the PRC is declared.

There's no British participation in the Korean War, but as the OTL contribution was relatively small, that doesn't alter the result.

The Malayan Emergency is interesting because all other things being equal the Communist UK would be fighting a counter-insurgency war against a communist guerilla army. My guess is that there isn't one because the UK's objective was an independent communist pro-British state so they'd be co-operating with the Malay communists from 1945 onwards. If there was one they'd be fighting US-backed conservative-nationalist guerillas.

In the longer term how does that change relations with Indonesia? The Dutch won't have any help from the British when they try to re-establish control because the British will be neutral or supporting the Indonesians. Maybe a communist Malaysia (including Brunei & Singapore) makes Indonesia seek an alliance with the USA instead of the USSR.

I don't know how it alters things in Cyprus and Kenya. Southern Rhodesian UDI is in the late 1940s instead of the 1965 and it joins South Africa. The rest of British Africa probably becomes independent at the same time as IOTL. I don't know how it changes things for Bermuda and the British colonies in the Caribbean either. AFIAK most of the former African and Caribbean colonies adopted socialist/communist economic policies anyway and most of the former African colonies became one-party states too.

 

[Martes]

In which case the USN would come into direct confrontation with the MN too. Though in my version of your timeline there isn't a Suez War or not one as we know it.

A very difficult situation, indeed, but it shows the very wide range of possible scenarios.

I think I got the difference between your timeline and mine. From the storytelling perspective, I want Britain to suffer the post-war fall from grace and feel it, because otherwise most of post-war material, such as books on naval design, etc, becomes useless, as situation is very different. And only then re-emerge, kind of like today's China starting from junior partner and working up. That way it is possible to use as many examples from real history as possible, mirroring events and technologies if needed.

Switching too early, as you suggest, with most of the Navy intact, with post-war victorious position, indeed brings to the table a totally different strategy, and totally different mode of cooperation, probably much more aggressive and at least much more assertive, both for Britain within the bloc (being not the second power, but one of two first powers, making the alliance practically equal) and inherently the bloc on the whole.

Some non-naval things to consider.

This requires a very detailed answer, and there is a question of PRC, maoism, as well as Yugoslavia and the whole uncommitted movement.

And Gibraltar. There is Gibraltar. Probably with locally deployed nukes, just in case.

(pro-Soviet communist UK)

The basic assumption is not communist Britain, but a socialist monarchy within a pro-soviet military alliance. One bloc-two systems, that kind of thing. Not a critical factor, but I think it's still important to take it into account. But everything else is on point.

dissuading American involvement in "European affairs"

As counterweight, there will be much more active French participation in NATO affairs. France will feel threatened (and rightly so), as well as West Germany.

I'd expect some surface warships with heavy AShM batteries similar to Soviet designs.

I kept the missiles on the carriers (20 Granits) and on command cruisers (10 Basalt), because it felt a natural thing to do under the circumstances. There are never enough of those things.

I'd expect the US to openly support the cause of the IRA and aid it in being as much of a headache to the Red UK as possible.

Oh, yes, for sure. Ireland is going to be a perpetual sore point, as i noted above, including crazy missions of American SSNs for smuggling weapons.

The UK's navy would naturally become a lot less focused on protecting convoys and instead be more "offensively minded" in the sense of being able to interdict any movement across the Atlantic.

Also, I tentatively suppose that the Soviets would delegate the responsibility for all British colonies, former or current, that still remain under the bloc's control, back to Britain (because it's the natural thing to do) so there will be actually an active colonization under rhethoric of decolonization, and that's what I referenced when I wrote about the destination of the Escort Cruisers as colonial control ships. That will reverse the real "withdrawal from East of Suez commitments".

I wonder what else would US change in the doctrine and overall approach, especially in amphibious operations, as they have to make do without Harriers.

And yes, let's keep the lid on thermonuclear apocalypse, and consider even hot war events as limited and conventional

 

[uk 75]

Sorry to be a Jonah on this thread.
While the UK had politicians on the Right and Left (Enoch Powell and Michael Foot to name two) who advocated nuclear disarmament and leaving the US led NATO to become a leading non-aligned nation like India, noone in Parliament has ever advocated becoming an ally of the Soviet Union.
So the political and historical rationales here are Fantasy Football Team territory.
Please stick to discussion of possible UK/Soviet hybrid weapon systems which is a valid technical theme.

 

[Martes]

The Command/Escort Cruiser

I still have to repaint the deck and properly configure and test the weapons, but she's working enough for a quick Harrier flight.

​

 

[TsrJoe]

I understand its all about creating pretty pictures, just musing tho, In this TL. is the UK. still bankrupt after 1945 facing ever increasing shortages of food and resources (hence, eg. British engines for Soviet grain, et al) and also needing to pay the various loans plus interest to the US. quite possibly in a shorter term ?
Might well be a case of Britain if going down the alternate red route postulated we would be more like a smaller player such as Poland and not a main teir state (or my favourite ATL. becoming ostensibly like Finland or Sweden !)

 

[uk 75]

The immediate years after World War Two were very harsh for people in the UK with weather and rationing making it worse.
The Labour Party contrary to its Tory critics was not under any illusions about Moscow.
Had Washington forced early repayment of loans and other harsh measures Britain might have had to develop a closer relationship with Moscow
Similar to Finland or Sweden we would have focussed on self defence. No Atom Bomb no NATO. Our armed forces would have been much more limited.

 

[Martes]

Might well be a case of Britain if going down the alternate red route postulated we would be more like a smaller player such as Poland and not a main teir state

If I understand correctly, the final decision of the role of each state within the block (both NATO and WP) laid in DC and Moscow respectively. I used West/East Germany pair as a prototype for mirroring the process. DDR was used very extensively for demonstrating reconstruction of economy and various overseas operations, so in the same manner I suppose Britain would be employed at what it does best - navy and colonial network. Just like the ASW-GIUK Gap role was forced on RN by the US.

 

[Arjen]

In the Original Time Line, with the UK and USA as allies, RN ships were immediately, recognisably British. With few cues taken from US designs. Why would a UK/Soviet alliance result in RN ships looking like Soviet knockoffs?

 

[Martes]

RN ships were immediately, recognisably British.

What I argue is that with some cosmetic modifications, Soviet designs are close enough to the British design concepts (i.e. what was planned before the Treasury cut everything down). Arrangement of armament, sets of weapon systems, radar groups, etc. Moreover the models I posted in the first post are not exactly Soviet, if you look carefully enough. It's obviously an initial artist error, and I tried to make as much use of it as possible.

For example, take the Type 23 frigate and Kara cruiser. Then try to blow up Type 23 to Type 43 (long range anti-air systems fore and aft, ASW/ASuW missiles, two turrets instead of one) and how different this will look from Kara?

 

[Arjen]

Apart from the CATOBAR carrier, the only thing obviously British in the artwork is the White Ensign and some of the aircraft.
NATO-UK shows UK radars, missiles, guns, aircraft, hull forms. I would expect Warsaw Pact UK to show similar UK content, even if Soviet style missions would influence what kind of ships would be built. I can discern a RN destroyer from a USN one even if the type is unfamiliar to me.
Submarine reactors would be different.

 

[Martes]

Apart from the CATOBAR carrier

For the CATOBAR carrier I changed the hull, making it ostensibly British style (and I am really glad you recognized it as such), same as the VSTOL cruiser above.

The gun turrets, by the way, are British, they are taken from another model that had them.

The electronics and missile systems I left Soviet. It was either that or American, and Soviet looked closer, and that brought me to the whole concept.

 

[Arjen]

I will let the British ship 'look' rest for a bit, but in that period, the UK had its own electronics and missiles. If the US electronics and missiles don't displace them on RN ships OTL, why would the Soviet equipment displace them in your timeline?

 

[Martes]

One of the aims of this thread, as I thought it would be, was to make a kind of comparison of what Britain - in those circumstances, in this period, i.e. 1960-1980 - would want to from the Soviets, what, on the other hand would be exported, and what would be left to own development. In terms of projects, systems, electronics.

Harrier would obviusly be an export hit.
SLBMs would have to be either purchased or jointly developed.
And so on.

But I have to know what to replace and what to leave.

As to integrating allied electronics in joint projects - there was the case of the Dutch Broomstick radar. It wasn't used in the end, but considered extensively nevertheless.

Then there are Phantoms and Sidewinders, and probably other things I am not aware about.

Also, following the switch, however it could have happened, Britain will have to boost it's military capabilities very rapidly, and that can bring about consideration of "what system we can get right now in quantity while we develop next generation of it". Like the Mig-23 for the CATOBAR carrier, for instance. CVA-01 was to involve variable geometry aircraft development, but if one can be supplied on the spot?..

 

[Arjen]

@Martes I am a bit dubious about the circumstances that would have given rise to these ships, but I will readily admit they look good. So keep it up.

 

[Martes]

@Arjen , thanks I do try to keep the style, in any case, and I am particularly grateful for acknowledgment of the large CATOBAR carrier, because it was the first model where I actually altered the hull. I used both plans for the Colossus to correct the entry (I like their hull lines) and some photos of the current Queen Elizabeth.

Just as an illustration for the overall concept - take this study of the Type 43 (Brown)



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

 

[Martes]

Some impressions of the Escort Cruiser in operational environment.

Launching Harriers


Helicopter fly-by






​

 

[BlackBat242]

Even in a Warsaw Pact-UK Navy I would still expect your Harrier-equipped cruiser to have a ski jump at the fore end of the flight deck.

It might be closer to the original 7° one on Invincible & Illustrious, but it would be there, to enable use of the full 5,000 lb payload of the initial models (GR.3, Sea Harrier). By the time an improved version came along (the FA.2 had a max payload of 8,000 lb) such as the "Big-Wing Harrier" (that was rejected in favor of the Harrier II design and would have increased the payload to ~9,000-9,500 lb like the AV-8B) they might have required the ramp to be steepened closer to the 12°-14° of the later Invincibles, PdA, Garibaldi, etc.

The Kievs never had one because the Yak-38 had a very restricted payload, and was there more to be forward control for AShMs fired by its base ship than for independent combat capability (the improved Yak-38M had a total payload of 2,000 lb), so little would be gained by adding a ski jump to the Soviet ships.

What was the length of the flight deck on your version of the Kievs (the original is 186m [610'])?

As this is a bit longer than the 170m (560') flight deck of Invincible & Illustrious as built, the lower 7° jump angle might be considered sufficient with the 4-knot faster speed of the Kievs.

That 610' is about the same as the 183m (600') of Ark Royal's 12° jump flight deck (and the other two after their ski jumps were rebuilt in the late 1980s-early 1990s to 14°), so perhaps a 10° angle might be better for your Kievshires.

Either option should only lose you the forward helo spot, but improve your Harriers' combat power.

 

[Martes]

Even in a Warsaw Pact-UK Navy I would still expect your Harrier-equipped cruiser to have a ski jump at the fore end of the flight deck.

Oh, I am aware of that and even wondered if anyone would notice, but there is nothing I can do with this for the moment. That's, unfortunately, a purely technical limitation. The game currently (I am pretty sure it would be fixed in the future) allows to set only a horizontal runway, i.e. there is a start point and runway/catapult length in the config file, so if I put a ski-jump there, the planes will fly through it, and that's going to look very awkward. So I can make a version with the ski-jump, but I won't be able to use it for now.

Curiously the game seems to be aware of that and when taking off (you have to zoom in rather heavily), the Harriers turn their nozzles down about 45 degrees, and there is certainly an additional fuel consumption involved (although way less than with vertical start), but that's the best I can have for now. Kind of I have to assume the ship could've been completed without the ski-jump and it will be added later.

What was the length of the flight deck on your version of the Kievs (the original is 186m [610'])?

The deck is identical to Kiev. For the time being I even left the narrow aft elevator that can't fit the Harrier and is used only for helicopters, but that is easier to change than the ski-jump.

I have read, though, that at some point the Soviets began to practice rolling take-offs that somehow improved the Yak-38 performance, so I temporarily implemented the same for the Harriers. The landing is also limited to rolling for now.

-----

Tactically, I realize the heavy AShMs forward are a kind of last-ditch weapons, as in any scenario except total apocalypse I am very reluctant to even try using them (for most of the "colonial" service they would probably be nuclear or considered as such for deterrent), so Harriers are indeed the main weapon of the ship. There is even the same problem as with real Invincible - lack of local AEW aircraft. You can get a helicopter up, but it has only surface radar, so you have to juggle with Harrier CAPs. Or I will end up making a custom AEW helicopter.

But, as the initial purpose of this all was to get some some ability to play (something that looks like if you squint enough) RN without meticulously recreating it from scratch, I now have a more or less functional navy with large carriers, small carriers, their airgroups and various anti-air/anti-submarine ships.

----

Then the sketchy part begins.

But for serious things we still have to rely on the Soviets - Tu-95RT for recon (the shadower is now your best friend, in reversal again), Tu-142 for long range ASW work, Mig-25s to protect them, Tu-16 and Tu-22 as long range bombers.

For the submarines I chose the Alpha and Oscars, probably because I just like them, but I suppose that they should be in fact locally or jointly developed.

What would interest RAF in terms of aircraft? Which projects may go ahead that didn't in our reality? Would Britain be interested in large bomber-carried missiles to purchase or develop, for example? The same Mig-25 or other long-range interceptor? Bombers?

 

[Martes]

As the fun part of it, I dug a little into period naming conventions and came up with a list of names for aircraft and weapon systems. It's more for immersion purposes only, and not really serious, and of course it is implied that some of those systems are in fact local or joint development, but just look similarly (design convergence), but bear with me for a moment.

Ka-27 -> Westland Kingfisher

Mig-23A -> Hawker-Siddeley Harpy (RN)

Mig-23 -> Hawker-Siddeley Harpy (RAF)

Su-24M/MK -> Panavia Condor (Tornado equivalent, joint UK-DDR-CZ development)

P-42 -> Hawker-Siddeley Angler ASW/AEW (unbuilt Soviet project, probably there is a British equivalent, see post 8)

Ko-45 -> Hawker-Siddeley Kittiwake Attack/EW (unbuilt Soviet project, probably there is a British equivalent, see post 8)

S-300 Fort (SA-N-6) -> Sea Serpent (the system actually combines S-300 missile with rail launcher, making a kind of Sea Dart equivalent)

3K95 Kinzhal (SA-N-9) -> Sea Arrow (short range anti-air, fitted instead of Sea Cat)

3S90 Uragan (SA-N-7) -> Sea Kite (Sea Wolf? Medium range missile, fitted aboard small frigates and CATOBAR carrier)

Kh-59 Ovod (AS-13) -> Bloodhound (TV-seeker missile)

Kh-58 (AS-11) -> Gryphon

Kh-23 Grom (AS-7) -> Taildog

Kh-35 (AS-20) (=Harpoon) -> Claymore

P-500 Bazalt (SS-N-12) -> Sea Boar

P-800 Granit (SS-N-19) -> Skyfall

URPK Metel (SS-N-14b) -> Ikara

RPK-6 Vodopad (SS-N-16) -> Skysnare

S-10 Granat (SS-N-21) (=Tomahawk) -> Naval Strike Missile

R-40 (AA-6) -> Bluebird

R-23 (AA-7) -> Skystreak

R-60 (AA-8) -> Fireflash

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

The CATOBAR carriers inherit the names of CVA-01 program (Queen Elizabeth, Duke of Edinburgh, Prince of Wales), while for Command Cruisers I thought of names of sailing razee frigates with a hint to Invincible and battlecruisers (Indefatigable, Vindictive, ...). For the rest the names were chosen from pre-WW1 cruiser list, it's long enough

 

[Martes]

Some more screenshots - I made some very minor and cosmetic fixes the most notable of which is widening the black stripe over the waterline. Somehow, it just makes everything look right.

​

 

[BlackBat242]

For the aft lift - here are a couple of pics of the real thing in ex-Baku/Gorskov-now INS Vikramaditya (pics from internet - I believe the Key Publishing forums during the modernization and sea trials):

First 3 looking aft:






Looking forward - note the hangar forward of the lift has fire curtains in place separating the hangar into two:



The fore lift is built the same.

Here is a deck plan inside - I know the part with the green background still shows the missile launchers in place, but the flight deck outline there and in the red section are purely that of the modified layout for India:

 

[Martes]

@BlackBat242 , thank you for those images, I haven't seen those photos.

I know the part with the green background still shows the missile launchers in place

The orange parts are those that were removed, green shows new additions. A apparently the aft elevator was widened to fit Mig-29 with folded wings, since the original was even more narrow.

Concerning the ski-jump and possible later modifications to the ship.
As I read in The Age of Invincible, the actual development of the ski-jump was a relatively late addition and if we suppose that those ships are a direct combination of Escort Cruiser study series 21 and Soviet 1143 project, it would probably mean they are began earlier (1970-71) and probably, unless the development accelerated, completed without it. But it was a one-man project and we can't be sure.

I tried to fit a very modest ski-jump as you suggested:

​

...and it does look somewhat awkward combined with an angled deck. So I am certainly open to consider other options.

One I could think of is removing the CIWS from the port side sponsons, and extending the deck forward and sideways, making it parallel to the centerline (Invincible style), and possibly removing the port-aft missile container in order to make the deck not too wide outboard, something like this:

​

 

[Martes]

The more or less final design for "as completed" Escort Cruiser (without the ski-jump), with rounded edge of the foredeck and other small corrections:

​

 

[Martes]

Now that we have the Escort/Command cruiser finalized for the time being, here is a very quick and dirty design study for Krivak-II conversion.

Based on early studies for Type 23 and heavily utilizing existing parts. The hull is somewhat lengthened to enable installation of a 4.5" gun.



I am not sure about anything here, it's just playing with parts for the moment.

There are also repaints I consider - Il-62 RAF skin for VC10 and possibly some Nimrod style modification for Tu-16.

 

[Martes]

Escort Cruiser launching anti-ship missiles:

​