Modernise Vanguard and the KGV’s for the 1980s

Temeraire

Temeraire

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
9 September 2023
Messages
32
Reaction score
35
In a perfect world for the British armed forces how would you modernise HMS Vanguard and the King George V class to serve in the 1980s?

(Before anyone asks Yes CVA-01 through 04 are built in this timeline, so no yapping about building carriers instead, this is a perfect world for the RN, so the navy has enough.
also the Battleships are kept in reserve, aren’t scrapped from 1957 to 1960 and are all in good condition)
 
It may come in handily to shell the shit out of Port Stanley airfield. 14 inch shells (if KGV) or 15 inch shells (Vanguard) would make much bigger holes than a) a Vulcan single bomb or b) SHARs cluster bombs or c) puny 5 inch shells from frigates.
 
Last edited:
Let's the fun begin (evil, maniacal laugh). Could KGV or Vanguard armor sustain Exocet hits ?

Also the battleships would turn ARA Belgrano into razor blades.
 
Agree. Our beloved moderators will move that within the blink of an eye.
 
I know I've got too much imagination, but when I see big ships like the Vanguard or the King George, I can't resist imagining some Harriers or helicopters on them. :D
Like larger Tiger-class cruisers.
Publicidade-do-British-Aerospace-Sea-Harrier-na-Revista-Marítima-Brasileira-em-1978-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
The problem as I see it with the Tigers and their ilk is the investment. Could have been better spent elsewhare considering the manpower reduction sought by the monkeys.

We could have had more smaller conversions doing more with the same crew/manning levels of the time.

Seeing the Vanguard kept is something I would have been happy with tbh. Guided munitions would have been more effective than the Black Buck missions imho. The effects of an Exocet however, I do not know enough about to speculate.
 
Last edited:
Temeraire said:
In a perfect world for the British armed forces how would you modernise HMS Vanguard and the King George V class to serve in the 1980s?
Click to expand...
Almost entirely useless, even modernised, in modern warfare. But that's about 220,000 tonnes of steel. Half of that will provide eight helicopter cruisers to escort. Another quarter will provide the fifth aircraft carrier. Use the rest for six or eight modern guided missile destroyers.

Yes, I know it doesn't quite work that way. But you get the point.

Alternatively, if you must have battleships, get the Americans to supply a couple of dozen cruise missiles to go on each them, and otherwise do as little as possible. It's not worth the bother to reactivate the guns.
 
A fantasy of mine is to have Vanguard modernised in 1960-64 with the 8x2x5.25" mounts replaced by 4x2x3" L70 mounts in the lower positions and space left for a future short-range SAM in the higher positions, the 40 mm L60 Bofors mounts removed and replaced by a few remote-controlled stabilised 40 mm L70 Bofors, the boilers replaced by high pressure units as fitted to HMS Victorious, a helicopter landing pad with refueling and rearming facilities fitted on the quarterdeck, the DC electronics replaced by AC electronics and a Type 984M fitted on the top of the rear superstructure. Then, in a further refit in the late 1970's, a Sea Wolf system is located on both sides of the ship in the empty space where the superfiring 5.25" mounts used to be, 16 Exocet mounts fitted an vacuum tube electronics replaced by microprocessor-based ones. Such a ship would have been a nasty opponent to Argentine A-4s in the San Carlos water.
 
And then it inspires France to do the same with Richelieu and Jean Bart: Masurca, Crotales, Exocets and the kitchen sink.
 
Ignoring the question of where the UK finds the cash (someone finds a galleon full of lost gold of course) I think the best you could hope for is the same sort of modernization the Iowa class got in the 1980s. Strip all of the old Bofors and Oerlikon guns, remove four of the 5.25" mountings, and install missiles, four 30mm Goalkeeper CIWS, and modern radar, electronics, and countermeasures systems. Clear a space on the stern for a helicopter landing pad. Maybe buy some of the same Pioneer UAVs that were deployed from the Iowa class. If you feel the need for even more firepower to deal with small threats, you could add a few positions for the modern 20mm Oerlikon guns some of the Royal Navy destroyers and frigates had later in the Cold War.

I am not too familiar with the missile systems used by the RN during the Cold War, but I believe some ships near the end of that period had Harpoon AShMs so might as well add a few quad launchers of those like the Iowas had. A very useful capability would obviously be Tomahawk cruise missiles, but US Congress would probably have to approval sales of those and that may not be a guarantee. As for SAMs the two obvious systems are Sea Dart and/or Sea Wolf. But hardening the radars and other equipment to deal with the shock and vibration of the main guns can be quite a challenge as the USN found out when trying to add Sea Sparrow to the Iowas. And as far as I know the original Sea Sparrow is a rather "simple" missile compared to those UK types, so it would probably require a lot more work to incorporate the necessary electronics for them. Overall, it might not be worth the effort unless the RN is really flush with cash and can afford such a luxury.

Theoretically you could perform an even more significant rebuild and remove the rear turret(s) as was proposed for some Iowa class modernization. This frees up volume and you could probably put SAM systems back there without worrying about blast effects. If you want an even more exotic idea, you could configure the whole stern area for Sea Harrier operation. You would have to ensure you've put enough weight back there in terms of equipment and likely some ballast, so that the ship remains balanced.

While HMS Vanguard did incorporate numerous design improvements over the King George V class part of me thinks modernizing just the last two KGVs (Anson and Howe) would be more efficient. The 14" guns are newer than the old 15" and supporting both types of guns means more cost from logistics. It is a shame for Vanguard to go to waste however, particularly since it is somewhat faster. Any analysis would have to consider the build quality of all these ships and how much abuse they took from their wartime use. I'd have to assume the earlier battleships (King George V himself and Duke of York) would be considerably more worn from their longer service during the war.

Tying into that last point is the big question of how well these ships would be have been preserved during their periods of inactivity. Mothballing the Iowas and all of the large WWII warships was a considerable effort and I'm sure there was still plenty of cost involved. The big challenge here would be ensuring some of the KGVs and/or Vanguard survive all the way to the 1980s without Her Majesty's Treasury deciding to send them all to the scrap yards. Even in a best-case scenario I don't think King George V and Duke of York will make it that far.

One final thought, I think I heard somewhere that RN WWII ships used direct current vs alternating current which AFAIK is the standard everyone uses in ships these days. I am not an electrical guy so I don't know much about the subject, but this might complicate the whole process of modernizing these battleships and would have to be considered.
 
Turn them into razor blades (or more lucratively pre-nuclear steel for University Laboratory instruments), use the money freed up for something better. Even in an infinite-money-cheat world, I would have to see circa-100,000 ton CVAN-01 through -22 before I would be willing to look at non-flatop capital ships aside from SSBNs.

The Pioneer UAV was an Israeli design foisted upon an unwilling USN by Congress after the failure of Aquila. A sea-service UAV needs to have an engine burning AVTUR (not Avgas as in Pioneer), hardened against radiation from radars, and all weather (Pioneer, with it's wooden propeller that eroded in the rain was very much not).
 
Last edited:
Or just keep a few turrets and build a modern day monitor around them. Think the USN thought about doing that, before or after Iowa reactivation in the 1980's.
There were far more KGV than Vanguard, and the latter turrets were of WWI vintage (from memory). So go 14 inch guns on a monitor.
 
Obviously the first paragraph in my previous post isn't really in the spirit of this thread, so I'm suggesting some limited late 1940s to late 1950s modernisations.

Initially all ships should be brought up to the standards in this post, and briefly discussed on more detail in norman Friedman's The British Battleship, but with some changes due to lack of availability of some equipment which cannot be developed in time.

In short 1945-50 improvements should consist of:

-Type 960 WA set

-Type 293 TI set with GDS.2

-Type 277Q Surface Warning Set

-Type 972 or 974 as a back-up High-Definition Surface Warning Set

-Mark 10 AFCT with Type 274 Fire Control Radar and Type 931/932 shell-splash spotting radars on both DCTs

-Replacement of earlier HA directors with Mark VI or Mk 37 directors complete with Type 275 radars and Flyplane. No intention of fitting LRS-1 at all, I think the above deck swept area for the director and radar, combined with below-deck computer requirements precludes fitting it on anything other than new build construction.

-No MRS directors, unless they are the CRS1 derived MRS1 with the Type 262-derived Type 263 radar, which can make use of existing developments for CRBFD, and hopefully has an above deck computer. If this can be done, 4 of such directors, for controlling heavy HA armament at medium and close ranges.

-LA armament and large-calibre HA armament to be fitted with RPC

-Replacement of Octuple Pom-Poms on superstructure with Sextuple Bofors Mk VI, controlled by CRBFDs, replacement of mountings atop turrets with STAAG, US quad Bofors mountings reolaced by Mk V twins controlled by STD (simple tachometric director), with an additional pair of Mk V twins on the centerline of the cruciform structure atop the aft superstructure, also controlled by STD. A small number of Mk VII singles, or postwar electric-drive Mk 9 singles, fitted for, but not with in peacetime. Controlled by on-mount Mark 6 Gyro-gunsights

-Type 149 or 161 self-protection sonar set.

-Outfit UA3 ESM with Outfit YAF analyser

-No changes to Vanguard, aside from fitting main armament with RPC, Type 149 or 161 and Outfit UA3
Click to expand...

Once this has been done, and to keep them more viable into the 1950s and beyond, I will be more adventurous and do the following:

1950-1965 improvements:

-Type 992 TI set with GDS.3

-Type 960 WA set, with option for replacement with larger -960M or 960P antennas, or alternatively the Type 965 WAIR set.

-Replacement of all HA directors with MRS3 fitted with Type 903 radar. Ideally close to one-to-one ratio of mountings and directors, with directors and computers taking priority when competing with mountings and ammunition for space on the superstructure and below-deck volume.

-Replacement of 5.25-inch mountings one-to-one with 3"/70 N1 mountings. Controlled by MRS3.

-replacement of Bofors L60 Mk VI sextuple mountings with Bofors L70 Mk12 sextuple mountings, ideally on a one-to-one basis, but directors take priority. Controlled by MRS3 and ideally no less than two mountings per side. If L70s delayed, replace with Sea Cat Launchers.

-Removal of STAAG twins without replacement. If possible Mk V twins replaced by L70 Mk 11 twin mountings, controlled by TOM (Tachymetric One Man director) or ideally MRS3, but MRS3 directors for the 3"/70 guns and sextuple Bofors take priority for deck space and below-deck volume.

-Single Mk VII or Mk9 mountings are replaced by single Mk10 L70 mountings, with on-mount Type 6 Gyro-gunsights cut for L70 Ballistics.

-Type 176 or 184 self-protection and torpedo warning sets.

-If possible Camrose rocket propelled anti-torpedo torpedoes, launched from 4 sets of triple tubes.

-If at all possible, on both KGVs and Vanguard, modify "B" turret, handling equipment and magazine for firing of nuclear 14" and 16" shells respectively.

-Outfit UA8, UA9, UA10 ESM with YAZ analyser, and Type 667S and 667X Cooky Jammers.

-Enclosed superstructure and rebuilt Action Information Centre, with the following:

"Project Cambria" Automatic Surface Plot, AKA Outfit JYA

Alternatively 48 or 32-track CDS with DPT/Link 1, and if possible 2-level Operations Room

-ABCD protected machinery spaces with remote control of main machinery, new cased boilers and forced draught blowers.

-Blast-resistant funnels

-Helicopter landing spot on the quarterdeck
Click to expand...

After all that, straight into mothballs until you want to do any limited modernisation and reactivation in the 1980s.

I wouldn't want to do any missile-conversions, Sea Slug, Blue Envoy and NIGs all demand too much volume, and I don't want to make much in the way of significant internal alterations.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Or just keep a few turrets and build a modern day monitor around them. Think the USN thought about doing that, before or after Iowa reactivation in the 1980's.
There were far more KGV than Vanguard, and the latter turrets were of WWI vintage (from memory). So go 14 inch guns on a monitor.
Click to expand...
Not seriously around the 1980s Iowa reactivations (just the one BBL article in Proceedings by an amateur naval architect, I think).

However, Friedman's US Amphibious Ships and Craft has a sketch from NAVSHIPS back around 1967 for a fire support ship (essentially a monitor) with one triple 16"/50 turret (without armor), and a secondary battery of either one MGLWG (175mm at the time) and two 5"/54 Mk 42s, or just four 5"/54 Mk 45s. This would have been a roughly 9,000-ton ship with little or no armor.* Diesel propulsion for 20 knots.

* Maybe. As often the case with Friedman, the drawing, caption, and text don't exactly match. The caption says this displacement applies to the design above; the main text says it is for a ship with a single 16"/50, one MCLWG, and two 5"/54 LW guns. o_O
 
Last edited:
Temeraire said:
In a perfect world for the British armed forces how would you modernise HMS Vanguard and the King George V class to serve in the 1980s?

(Before anyone asks Yes CVA-01 through 04 are built in this timeline, so no yapping about building carriers instead, this is a perfect world for the RN, so the navy has enough.
also the Battleships are kept in reserve, aren’t scrapped from 1957 to 1960 and are all in good condition)
Click to expand...

Well:

* KGVs - I would remove all main guns, and install missile hangars and two triple (quadruple?) launchers for Seaslug missiles. Add four Type 901 radars for guidance on top of forward and rear superstructure. Remove the aircraft facilities and instead put a hangar and launch ramp for cruise missiles (either Regulus-I, or British analogue).

* Vanguard - I would remove rear 15-inch turrets, and install two superfiring Seaslug missile systems, and two Type 901 radars on the top of rear superstructure. Make superstructure bigger, and turn her into dedicated fleet flagship with additional comman facilities and spaces for flag personnel.
 
You'd have to do something about the crew intensive nature of these ships first, if they are to survive into a more modern era in post colonial Britain.

Between the 4 surviving KGV and Vanguard postwar, you are looking at about 8000 men to man these as they stood when hostilities ended.
 
I agree with Dilandu's suggestions and the model of Vanguard I had made here shows it

In a world where resources permitted the battlewagons would be very useful ships in this role. In the Far East or Persian Gulf the ships would be able to project power supplementing carriers.

They would probably not survive the 60s.

Unlike the well built and modern New Jersey class the condition of Vanguard and the KGVs would not have allowed them to serve beyond the 60

Of course of the US helped out by refurbishing them for us...
 
I appreciate the idea is to come up with scenarios in which the last British battleships survive longer in service than they actually did.

A problem with this thought experiment is that these battleships were (1) obsolescent at best, (2) were extremely expensive from a financial and resources perspective to keep in service, and (3) faced little to no opposition threat that warranted or required battleships in the early Cold War period.

In the theoretical position where any one of these 3 factors don’t apply (for example, say the UK has greater funds to potentially spend in this area) then it appears most likely that any additional efforts would be elsewhere
 
All good points. Also, the ships were nowhere near as well built as the New Jersey class or as modern.
I can imagine them surviving in the 50s if Seaslug had been ready sooner (like the early US Terriers) and Vanguard was still around. The KGVs and Nelson etc were all pretty knackered though a KGV with least service (Anson, Howe?) might also work.
 
The problem with Battleship missile conversions is that they don't have all that much more centerline space or volume than heavy Cruisers, and you will end up with a ship that has the same number of ling-range SAM launchers and fire channels as a heavy cruiser conversion, albeit with more magazine depth, but at the cost of a significantly more costly and difficult internal rearrangement, woth thicker armour to cut out and remove, not to mention changes in trim brought about by the removal of the gun turrets.
 
Topi said:
A fantasy of mine is to have Vanguard modernised in 1960-64 with the 8x2x5.25" mounts replaced by 4x2x3" L70 mounts in the lower positions and space left for a future short-range SAM in the higher positions, the 40 mm L60 Bofors mounts removed and replaced by a few remote-controlled stabilised 40 mm L70 Bofors, the boilers replaced by high pressure units as fitted to HMS Victorious, a helicopter landing pad with refuelling and rearming facilities fitted on the quarterdeck, the DC electronics replaced by AC electronics and a Type 984M fitted on the top of the rear superstructure. Then, in a further refit in the late 1970's, a Sea Wolf system is located on both sides of the ship in the empty space where the superfiring 5.25" mounts used to be, 16 Exocet mounts fitted an vacuum tube electronics replaced by microprocessor-based ones. Such a ship would have been a nasty opponent to Argentine A-4s in the San Carlos water.
Click to expand...
More or less the above. My main differences are that a one-for-one replacement of the twin 5.25in turrets with twin 3in turrets may be possible and to fit ADA & DPT to complement the Type 984M radar in the 1960-64 refit. Then in the 1970s Sea Wolf would replace as many of the Bofors as necessary because I want to keep as many 3in guns as possible.
 
The saner of the proposed late 80s and early 90s Phase II modernisations of the Iowa-class were intended to have one Sea Sparrow launcher per side. I don't see the need for any more launchers than that for a modernised KGV or Vanguard.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
They were certainly as well built as the Iowa class, and almost as modern given the commissioned within a few years of each other.
Click to expand...
The US ships had modern 16" guns whreas Vanguard used 15" left over from WW1 ships while the KGV had problematic 14" turrets.
I also read that the steel used in UK ships was lower grade and that their electrical systems were AC rather than DC (happy to admit I may have got this wrong).
 
uk 75 said:
The US ships had modern 16" guns whereas Vanguard used 15" left over from WW1 ships while the KGV had problematic 14" turrets.
Click to expand...

Increasingly reliable once the initial working up problems were ironed out, you have to remember that many of the surface actions the KGVs took part in were sustained over a few hours, US ships sustained similar casualties in prolonged firing practices.

Given that these ships aren't expected to be fighting the Iowa-class, and are intended only to conduct bombardments in Warm Wars and Cold Wars (to use original British 1950s descriptions) and in Hot Wars are perhaps only likely to shoot at any Project 68 Sverdlovs or Project 82 Stalingrads, their 14" or 15" should be more than enough.

uk 75 said:
I also read that the steel used in UK ships was lower grade and that their electrical systems were AC rather than DC (happy to admit I may have got this wrong).
Click to expand...

The quality of structural steels used doesn't make a ship significantly more advanced, I can't imagine there are much in terms of quantifiable difference between US STS and Royal Navy D Type structural steel. Certainly not enough to preclude continued service and modernisation Post War. KGVs as ships built in peacetime should have properly acid-treated steel, and so should not suffer the same corrosion problems as war-built ships.

UK ships primarily used DC, whereas US ships used AC, certainly a US advantage.

Of course one of the major advantages the Iowa-class had over any European battleship is that they took full advantage of the escalator clause and an extra two years of peace. Britain and France's escalator clause Battleships were cancelled on the outbreak of war in 1939.

@Temeraire in this scenario of yours, are the two clean-sheet design Lions of the 1944 Building Programme getting built?
 
uk 75 said:
The US ships had modern 16" guns whreas Vanguard used 15" left over from WW1 ships while the KGV had problematic 14" turrets.
I also read that the steel used in UK ships was lower grade and that their electrical systems were AC rather than DC (happy to admit I may have got this wrong).
Click to expand...
Well, if standartization is the key, what about just re-arming Vanguard on 14-inch guns?
 
I think the problem was the three gun config rather than their calibre. Vanguard only had two guns in the turrets
 
Why change Vanguard's turrets? They've been fully modernised with improved protection, improved falsh-tightness, higher elevation, RPC and have had their hoists changed to ensure that the shell rooms are above the powder magazine. There's plenty of spare parts, spare barrels and large ammunition stocks.
 
uk 75 said:
The US ships had modern 16" guns whreas Vanguard used 15" left over from WW1 ships while the KGV had problematic 14" turrets.
I also read that the steel used in UK ships was lower grade and that their electrical systems were AC rather than DC (happy to admit I may have got this wrong).
Click to expand...
To my knowledge, by 1944/45 the issues of the main battery turrets of the KGV class had been solved and they were no more problematic or unreliable than any other comparable system.
 
I also got the general impression that by 1944/45 the problems were solved, and it worked as reliably as any other large caliber naval artillery in use. It probably never quite got to the sustained 2 rounds per minute per gun they aimed for, but realistically battleships rarely-if-ever fired at such rates due to the need to make corrections for ranging following shell splashes.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
@Temeraire in this scenario of yours, are the two clean-sheet design Lions of the 1944 Building Programme getting built?
Click to expand...
I doubt they would be built, even in a perfect timeline seeing as by the end of 1945 it was almost completely agreed that Vanguard was the last Battleship that would be built.
Not to mention the absolute lunacy of the later Lion class designs.
Some had basically no belt Armour
Some were essentially beefed up pre Dreadnoughts
And others were as big (dimensions wise) as a Nimitz class carrier
Yeah, not ideal
 
IMG_6898.jpeg
here’s a half finished KGV with some modern weapons that came from my HMS Invincible Kit (there’s a sprue of weapons that aren’t needed for the kit. I have no idea why it’s in there but it is)

Also apologies for my painting. It isn’t the best.
 
uk 75 said:
All good points. Also, the ships were nowhere near as well built as the New Jersey class or as modern.
I can imagine them surviving in the 50s if Seaslug had been ready sooner (like the early US Terriers) and Vanguard was still around. The KGVs and Nelson etc were all pretty knackered though a KGV with least service (Anson, Howe?) might also work.
Click to expand...
British battleships were just as or in some specific cases even better than American ones.

For example Vanguard I’d argue would win against Iowa in an Atlantic battle due to the poor sea keeping of the American vessel. In the pacific however 9/10 times Vanguard would lose. Both ships were designed for different theatres, hence why sacrifices were made.

Vanguard also had superior protection. Whilst seeming thinner, in relative terms it was almost equal to Yamato’s (because British and German armour plate was superior, due to advanced metallurgy)
This means Iowa might have a hard time actually penetrating Vanguards Belt armour, however Vanguard would likely be unable to penetrate Iowas belt.

It’s likely then that a duel between the two would be a race to see who could demolish the others superstructure first, so they could then close in and finish off the crippled opponent.

Regarding the KGVs. Anson was the most modernised of the KGVs when they were reduced to reserve in the late 40s early 50s so she’d likely be first in line after Vanguard to be modernised, Howe probably would be next since she was the Youngest of the class, followed by Duke of York, then King George V herself.
 
Last edited:
The scenario in which the Vanguard and a pair of KGVs survive is almost impossible to devise.
My Seaslug conversion assumed thst the mythical Janes Fighting Ships rocket battleship actually existed and NATO had to match them. No not really, I just wanted a missile Vanguard to go with a model I have of rhe fictional Soviet ship in 1)1250.
An 80s Vanguard or KGV would have to be in an alt reality like Philip Pulmans Dark Materials where anything goes .
 
uk 75 said:
The scenario in which the Vanguard and a pair of KGVs survive is almost impossible to devise.
My Seaslug conversion assumed thst the mythical Janes Fighting Ships rocket battleship actually existed and NATO had to match them. No not really, I just wanted a missile Vanguard to go with a model I have of rhe fictional Soviet ship in 1)1250.
An 80s Vanguard or KGV would have to be in an alt reality like Philip Pulmans Dark Materials where anything goes .
Click to expand...
Well, a scenario where the Royal Navy is well funded to a point where they can retain the Battleships (like the USN IOTL) is exactly what I’m getting at. In this timeline, everything postwar goes perfect for the Royal Navy. No cuts, they get the 6 CVA-01s that they wanted before they were forced to settle for 4, then 3, then 1, then none. All Type 82s are built etc
 
Archibald said:
Let's the fun begin (evil, maniacal laugh). Could KGV or Vanguard armor sustain Exocet hits ?

Also the battleships would turn ARA Belgrano into razor blades.
Click to expand...
I’m almost certain Vanguard and the KGVs could sustain Exocet hits. Exocets are sea skimming missiles, and 14 inches of face hardened plate is almost certainly going to stop that.

The Argentinians (if i remember correctly) didn’t have bombs big enough to penetrate the decks (Vanguard could take a 10,000 lbs bomb and be fine, I can’t remember the figure for the KGVs off the top of my head but I assume it’s similar) so air attacks are essentially a non issue.

The main threat is from underwater, but Argentinas submarines were so rickety I doubt they’d have even gotten close.

Now as for Belgrano, she’d have been absolutely Kerb-stomped, along with her escorts. And seeing as ARA Venti Cinco de Mayo was recalled due to the threat of submarine attack (after Conks sank Belgrano). It’s a possibility she’d have stayed in the area longer, (because belgrano was lost to surface ships, not submarines) possibly allowing either Conquerer or Spartan to have a shot at her, which might have ended with the sinking of the Argie carrier (oh how they’d Seethe over that)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom