Modernise Vanguard and the KGV’s for the 1980s

[uk 75]

If you want a really alt alt option how about an RN with G3 battlecruisers and N3 battleships left over from WW2.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/what-if-no-treaty-of-washington-1922.33819/#post-532749

 

[kaiserd]

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)

No WW2 era battleship (including Vanguard) could take 10,000 lbs bombs and “be fine”. Tirpitz was effectively reduced to a floating wreck by, but just not actually sunk, by equivalent and smaller bombs. German first generation anti-ship missiles sunk Roma and had almost sunk Warspite (a lot of luck involved in her survival).

Exocet missiles were not designed to kill vessels with battleship-levels of armour but a number of hits would still be very likely to have a significant impact on the combat effectiveness of the unlucky recipient.

In reality no battleship were actually ever as invulnerable as some wish to believe they were.

The layers and levels of fantasy required (magic money trees, completely illogical prioritisations, delusions of invulnerability) to try to desperately make any such scenarios remotely plausible or possible or make any sense speaks to their inherent unreality. An aspect not helped by the unfortunately childish top-trumps tone and content of some of the posts above.

Post-war it simply didn’t matter which US or UK class (or the long sunk Yamato, whose loss and how she was lost should perhaps give more cause for pause for thought) have the theoretically better armour or firepower.

Ultimately the Iowa class survived because the US could afford to keep them going and just about found them tasks that justified their retention (however with intermittent long periods of being held in reserve). Neither of the factors are true for the UK. The UK didn’t have the money and didn’t have the need and if it had more more money it had many higher priorities for that extra money. The UK should not have completed Vanguard and probably should not have kept her and the George V class in service as long as they did.

 

[uk 75]

I think it should be clear from the tone of this thread that it is not meant to be as serious as some other what-if threads.
It is a fun idea (a reverse if you like of the film "Final Countdown" where Nimitz goes back to WW2).
Noone has suggested that this is potential real world option, the scenario is pure thought palace setting.
The UK's last battleships (or even the never-built G3s) are a fascinating subject for this play.
If the idea offends, just look away...

 

[Dilandu]

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.

Good job!

P.S. Hm, maybe the upper dual turret should be removed? It would reduce the main battery only 20%, but it would save a lot of upper weight, and, for example, Exocet battery could be installed in her place.

 

[Dilandu]

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.

What about the possibility of Argentinean to get some more capable missiles, at least ship-launched? Chinese Silkworms, for example? (USSR wasn't in good relation with Argentina, but China was willing to sell to anyone who may pay) Or Italian Otomat?

 

[uk 75]

The Torpedo is the main enemy of the battleship. Argentina had aircraft, ships and submarines able to launch torpedos at any British surface units approaching its coast rather than keeping out of range like Hermes and Invincible.

 

[BROF]

They were certainly as well built as the Iowa class, and almost as modern given the commissioned within a few years of each other.

Obsolete English DC electrics vs. USN's AC and static converters. This is a major reason why USN WWII ships were modernizable post-war, and theirs were not or only at enormous expenses. Took them until the 1950s to change from DC to AC in new-builts! (second batch of "Daring" destroyers). Also, many cast-iron castings such as turbo-machinery foundations, prone to cracking from underwater shocks, vs. HT steel. WWII material quality and workmanship was not so good, too (see respective assesments of "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" for further modernization in the 60s). And so on...

 

[Temeraire]

The Torpedo is the main enemy of the battleship. Argentina had aircraft, ships and submarines able to launch torpedos at any British surface units approaching its coast rather than keeping out of range like Hermes and Invincible.

Their subs didn’t work though

 

[Temeraire]

No WW2 era battleship (including Vanguard) could take 10,000 lbs bombs and “be fine”. Tirpitz was effectively reduced to a floating wreck by, but just not actually sunk, by equivalent and smaller bombs. German first generation anti-ship missiles sunk Roma and had almost sunk Warspite (a lot of luck involved in her survival).

Ok and?
Tirpitz and Bismarck were both terribly designed ships.
Warspite was a WW1 era battleship which didn’t have as much deck armour as modern vessels.
And I don’t know much about Roma, but seeing as she was Italian I’d guess she was bad as well.

Exocet missiles were not designed to kill vessels with battleship-levels of armour but a number of hits would still be very likely to have a significant impact on the combat effectiveness of the unlucky recipient.

They’d still absorb any Exocets that hit them on the belt, with minimal damage.

In reality no battleship were actually ever as invulnerable as some contributors appear to wish to believe they were.

No shit Sherlock

The layers and levels of fantasy required (magic money trees, completely illogical prioritisations, delusions of invulnerability) to try to desperately make any such scenarios remotely plausible or possible or make any sense speaks to their inherent unreality. An aspect not helped by the unfortunately childish top-trumps tone and content of some of the posts above.

You’re on an alternate history thread. That’s kind of expected.

Post-war it simply didn’t matter which US or UK class (or the long sunk Yamato, whose loss and how she was lost should perhaps give some contributors more cause for pause for thought) have the theoretically better armour or firepower.

I don’t care lmao

Ultimately the Iowa class survived because the US could afford to keep them going and just about found them tasks that justified their retention (however with intermittent long periods of being held in reserve). Neither of the factors are true for the UK. The UK didn’t have the money and didn’t have the need and if it had more more money it had many higher priorities for that extra money. The UK should not have completed Vanguard and probably should not have kept her and the George V class in service as long as they did.

If you were smart enough to read the first post I literally said money wasn’t a problem in this scenario.

this was meant to be a light hearted discussion about a possible scenario where the Royal Navy was able to retain and modernise their battleships.
It’s obvious that you have nothing but negativity to bring to the discussion so I suggest you leave, unless you have anything positive to contribute.

 

[Temeraire]

why not? but rather in the Alternative History section

My apologies, i thought I’d put this in the alternate history section

 

[Temeraire]

Good job!

P.S. Hm, maybe the upper dual turret should be removed? It would reduce the main battery only 20%, but it would save a lot of upper weight, and, for example, Exocet battery could be installed in her place.

I’ve installed a pair of Exocet launchers amidships since there’s lots of space there and the twin 14” has already been glued down and I don’t wanna risk damaging the model by removing it.

I’ll update when I’m done

 

[Dilandu]

The Torpedo is the main enemy of the battleship. Argentina had aircraft, ships and submarines able to launch torpedos at any British surface units approaching its coast rather than keeping out of range like Hermes and Invincible.

And I don’t know much about Roma, but seeing as she was Italian I’d guess she was bad as well.

Littorio-class were actually excellently armored. They have no weak spots at all. Just weren't designed to be hit by such heavy weapon (still, even after magazine explosion, Roma stayed afloat longer than any other battleship suffering the same)

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Also, many cast-iron castings such as turbo-machinery foundations, prone to cracking from underwater shocks.

The US also this problem. Nobody was prepared for underwater shock at the beginning of the Second World War, and the UK made significant attempts to take remedial action during the war, as discussed in A Century of Naval Construction.

WWII material quality and workmanship was not so good, too (see respective assesments of "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" for further modernization in the 60s).

Utterly irrelevant. KGVs were mostly built in peacetime, they will be of similar quality to the Town class cruisers, which were noted for their high build quality when their suitability for modernisation was discussed Post War.

 

[uk 75]

The alt history Argentines may be able to get the normally excellent W German subs to work and they have Neptunes capable of delivering torpedoes plus destroyers.

 

[Temeraire]

(see respective assesments of "Ark Royal" and "Eagle" for further modernization in the 60s). And so on...

Eagle was actually in good condition

 

[BROF]

The US also this problem. Nobody was prepared for underwater shock at the beginning of the Second World War, and the UK made significant attempts to take remedial action during the war, as discussed in A Century of Naval Construction.



Utterly irrelevant. KGVs were mostly built in peacetime, they will be of similar quality to the Town class cruisers, which were noted for their high build quality when their suitability for modernisation was discussed Post War.

Vanguard build 1941-46.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The alt history Argentines may be able to get the normally excellent W German subs to work and they have Neptunes capable of delivering torpedoes plus destroyers.

Nobody has air dropped torpedoes capable of more than annoying a battleship in the 1980s.

You'd need to have those destroyers armed with 21" heavyweights, not 12.75" air droppers.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The alt history Argentines may be able to get the normally excellent W German subs to work and they have Neptunes capable of delivering torpedoes plus destroyers.

They also tried fitting Mk 13 torpedoes to their Pucara coin aircraft. Maybe they could fit them to their Canberras too.

Nobody has air dropped torpedoes capable of more than annoying a battleship in the 1980s.

You'd need to have those destroyers armed with 21" heavyweights, not 12.75" air droppers.

Could the aircraft get into a launching position in the first place? That is the KGV class & Vanguard would have had:

• Their radars and AIO modernised at least once between 1945 & 1982. Therefore, by the time of the Falklands they'd have Type 984 or Type 988 and ADA or the second-generation ADAWS.
• The 5.25in guns may have been replaced by 3in guns with MRS3 fire control.
• Though my choice would be to keep the 5.25in Mk II turrets on Vanguard, replace the 5.25in Mk Is on the KGVs with the faster firing Mk II mounting and modernise the fire control on both. That's because the heavier weight of shell may be better for surface actions and shore bombardment.
• In either case enemy aircraft would have to run the gauntlet of scores of VT fused shells aimed by modern fire control equipment.
• If Vanguard had kept her fifty-five 40mm but had their fire control modernised and the KGVs were rearmed with fifty-five 40mm with modern fire control, that would thicken the the wall of lead the aircraft would be forced to fly through.

The combined 5.25in (or 3in) and 40mm might might not shoot down many aircraft, but it's likely that other aircraft would have been driven off and that the aim of the crews of others would have been "put off" which would haver reduced the number of hits. Plus the battleships would have been fitted with modern anti-torpedo countermeasures.

Similarly, would any attacking destroyers have got into a launching position in the first place? That is with ten 14in guns or eight 15in guns with modern fire control telling them to go forth and multiply. It may have been worse for the attacking destroyers if the KGVs & Vanguards had kept their sixteen 5.25in guns. Yes they'd be scoring fewer hits due to the lower rate of fire, but the shells that did hit contained more explosive.

The ships would have had modern active anti-torpedo countermeasures too so they'd divert some of the torpedoes too.

Therefore, it depends upon whether the Argentines would have had enough aircraft, destroyers and torpedo-bombers to swamp the active and passive defences of the modernised KGVs and Vanguards. I think not because the OP says.

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)

Therefore, five modernised battleships (Vanguard & 4 KGVs) were available in April 1982 so (depending upon how many were in being refitted) between two & four would have been sent. The more battleships in the task force the lower the probability of the Argentine forces swamping the defences.

Furthermore, they would have been part of a task force that included several CVA.01s operating modern AEW aircraft, fighters and strike aircraft. Therefore, it's unlikely that enough torpedo bombers and destroyers to swamp the battleships' defences would have got through, because a large number would have been shot down/sunk or driven off by the aircraft carriers.

Correction dated 10.05.24
It should be 5.25in Mk I* mountings not Mk II mountings as written above.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Torpedo is the main enemy of the battleship. Argentina had aircraft, ships and submarines able to launch torpedos at any British surface units approaching its coast rather than keeping out of range like Hermes and Invincible.

The submarine threat would have been reduced by being part of a task group that included modern destroyers and frigates with modern sonars and anti-submarine weapons. Please note that I wrote reduced, not eliminated. The Argentines could still get lucky and fire a golden BB, torpedo or Exocet.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Post 15.

The Post (which I didn't see until after I made my suggestions) said.

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 replaced 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.

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 15" 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.

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.

Interesting.

There's little that I could add to that. All I can think of is replacing the DC electrical systems with AC and modernising the accommodation to modern (that is 1950s or 1960s) standards which you might have thought went without saying.

There's little that I can dispute with that either.

• Why didn't you fit the Type 984 radar?
• Why didn't ships refitted between 1960 & 1965 have ADA instead of CDS?
• I've suggested keeping the 5.25in Mk II mountings on Vanguard and replacing the 5.25in Mk Is on the KGVs with Mk IIs as they'd be more effective for surface actions and shore bombardment.
• A compromise might be to replace the 5.25in one-for-one with the twin 4.5in Mk VI or even the Mk VII proposed for the Malta class. They had higher rates of fire than the 5.25in and fired heavier shells than the 3in.

I wouldn't want to do any missile conversions either. The point of keeping them is to keep as many guns as possible and as this is effectively a money no object timeline there's plenty of money to build new missile ships which would be better designs in any case.

Correction dated 10.05.24
It should be 5.25in Mk I* mountings not Mk II mountings as written above.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

There's little that I can dispute with that either.

• Why didn't you fit the Type 984 radar?

Initially I wanted to a very austere AIO set up, the likes of the Automatic Surface Plot or minimal CDS and DPT (honesty I'd prefer something similar to the CDS system intended for the Type 41 and 61 frigates, rather than Hermes or Victorious) to maintain basic situational awareness for self-defence against air threats, and to put the ship into a good position for a surface engagement. I would probably want some kind of more advanced Admiral's surface plot, using Outfit JYA or CDS technology. The two level operations room, if fitted, would not be for fighter control like on the Carriers or proposed Cruisers, but for a kind of slower moving strategic plot for use as a flagship. In this case, it's akin to the layout in 1930's warships, where the Captain on his bridge had window in the floor to look at the plot below, but in a fully protected CBRN environment, and with the strategic and tactical plots running side by side (or with the tactical plot on the upper level, with officers there being able to look down onto the strategic plot).

Type 984 will need a lot of volume atop the superstructure, probably requiring the removal of the forward DCT and HA director(s). It also forces the ship into a fighter direction role, which requires more extensive facilities and a YE radio beacon. Given this is in a "Britain with a money cheat" world, there should be enough Carriers, Cruisers, FADEs or Cruiser Destroyers to perform this role.

• Why didn't ships refitted between 1960 & 1965 have ADA instead of CDS?

ADAWS 1 isn't a thing until the Batch II Counties commissioning from 1966 onwards, so it is outside of the period in question, and given the austere radar fit, a bit redundant. I know there were intentions to fit it less capable version of ADA to the Leander-class, and for it to perform all the Fire Control calculations that were formally done by specialised Fire Control Tables/Clocks/Boxes etc, but given the sheer number of mountings on a battleship, I'd thought it would be beyond the capabilities of a computer at the time. I'm not opposed to it, and certainly considered it, for any late 1960s or early 70s modernisation I would probably fit it.

I would envision ships with CDS keeping into the 1980s, perhaps the earlier modernisations with JYA might later receive ADA.

• I've suggested keeping the 5.25in Mk II mountings on Vanguard and replacing the 5.25in Mk Is on the KGVs with Mk IIs as they'd be more effective for surface actions and shore bombardment.
• 
  A compromise might be to replace the 5.25in one-for-one with the twin 4.5in Mk VI or even the Mk VII proposed for the Malta class. They had higher rates of fire than the 5.25in and fired heavier shells than the 3in.

Depends if it is still in production when you want to make the modernisation. Fitting the Mk 1 mountings should bring them up to almost standards of those of Vanguard.

I was thinking more of AAW performance. The 5" MCDP mountings are too heavy, require too much volume above and below decks, especially considering swept arcs, and are optimised for long range AA fire, up to 12,000 yards, harassing fire out to 20,000 , when the ideal is ranges for anti-aircraft Gunnery are within 6000 yards. The 3"/70 is probably the best performing anti-aircraft gun for this role, hence it's selection. 5.25" is obviously considerably superior in the LA role,.but we also have the 14"or 15" guns for that.

 

[uk 75]

This is the fictional Russian battleship that is available in model form in 1/1250 scale and inspired my Vanguard conversion.
Post in thread 'Western Artists' Concepts of Soviet warships during the Cold War' https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...arships-during-the-cold-war.31321/post-639575

 

[Dilandu]

Nobody has air dropped torpedoes capable of more than annoying a battleship in the 1980s.

Actually USSR have RAT-52 till 1983. Granted, they weren't deployed since 1970s, but there were still some Tu-16T torpedo bombers in service - albeit refitted into search & rescue planes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Actually USSR have RAT-52 till 1983. Granted, they weren't deployed since 1970s, but there were still some Tu-16T torpedo bombers in service - albeit refitted into search & res

I stand (somewhat) corrected, then!

 

[Temeraire]

I've suggested keeping the 5.25in Mk II mountings on Vanguard and replacing the 5.25in Mk Is on the KGVs with Mk IIs as they'd be more effective for surface actions and shore bombardment.

I assume you mean the MK I* mountings on Vanguard. From what I’ve read the MK II was too long to be mounted

 

[Purpletrouble]

I think you need to start with the requirements for the ship and consider what can be technically made to work.

I’d suggest as requirements and associated outcome:

- afloat task force flagship. Requires flag bridge, some kind of ops/plot room and comms to other ships plus staff offices and accomodation. Easily doable.

- prestige. Simply a ”bloody great ship” that impresses the flip out of people. Tick vg.

- surface attack when carrier air is negated for weather or you are desperate. Requires decent surface search radars and modernised directors for the 15” guns. Easily doable. Assuming survive to 70/80s, add Exocets amidships or something.

- air defence in support of self/carriers. Hmmm. Much harder. New air direction radars wont be a goer on a ship that fires 15” guns due to blast and vibration. Replace 5.25” and 40mms with new 3” if you can, or do nothing and mothball the secondary mounts and skip this requirement leaving AA to escorts new and modernised. Perhaps add 4 Sea Cats or something later because statistically they must hit something if we tend to an infinite number of them…

- being a target to distract enemy from the carrier. We can lose one of these far more than we can a carrier. They also force an enemy to resource a counter to a heavy gun armoured ship.

The trick is to do as little as possible. We saw with the Lion (cruiser) class how absurd things get even for what seem simple modernisations (new 6” on old hull, adding helo and hangar), not to mention the carrier rebuilds.

The BBs are surface attack, flagship and prestige things (debate which order!). Focussing on doing those roles well minimises the rebuild time/cost and to me maximises their (perceived) value and chance of lasting.

The biggest problem will ageing propulsion and hull systems and how easy it is to refit these. I’d have an AH of 2-3 ships of a single class with say 1 active and the others in preservation (but actual preservation, not just being moored up rusting solid).

 

[Dilandu]

- air defence in support of self/carriers. Hmmm. Much harder. New air direction radars wont be a goer on a ship that fires 15” guns due to blast and vibration. Replace 5.25” and 40mms with new 3” if you can, or do nothing and mothball the secondary mounts and skip this requirement leaving AA to escorts new and modernised. Perhaps add 4 Sea Cats or something later because statistically they must hit something if we tend to an infinite number of them…

Just remove the rear turrets and install Sea Slug.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Just remove the rear turrets and install Sea Slug.

Disagree - missiles and their electronics plus radars on a ship with 15” blast and vibration is a project that will make our worst rebuilds look simple.

Put sea slug on new ships designed for it (power supplies etc.) and leave these alone.

It makes no sense to have big surface guns (for surface action vs passive shore bombardment) on a ship with missiles as the latter are going to be mission killed within a hit or two and that’s if they dont cause a Hood style catatrophic loss. That was a massive flaw with the Sea Slug cruiser in my view.

 

[Dilandu]

Disagree - missiles and their electronics plus radars on a ship with 15” blast and vibration is a project that will make our worst rebuilds look simple.

They would be more than half-ship from 15-inch guns, and protected by superstructure. Nothing would happens with them.

Put sea slug on new ships designed for it (power supplies etc.) and leave these alone.

Without SAM's, battleship isn't of much use.

It makes no sense to have big surface guns (for surface action vs passive shore bombardment) on a ship with missiles as the latter are going to be mission killed within a hit or two and that’s if they dont cause a Hood style catatrophic loss. That was a massive flaw with the Sea Slug cruiser in my view.

Er, what?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Disagree - missiles and their electronics plus radars on a ship with 15” blast and vibration is a project that will make our worst rebuilds look simple.

You do know that the KGVs and Vanguard had turrets at both ends, right? These aren't the weird, compact "All main turrets forward" types.

Any missile turrets aft would be some 300-400ft away from the big guns, and partly shielded by the entire superstructure.

The US had no issues with Harpoon cans or Tomahawks in ABLs within 100ft of the rear turret on the Iowas.

It makes no sense to have big surface guns (for surface action vs passive shore bombardment) on a ship with missiles as the latter are going to be mission killed within a hit or two and that’s if they dont cause a Hood style catatrophic loss. That was a massive flaw with the Sea Slug cruiser in my view.

So, because cruisers are inadequately armored, you think that battleships are also inadequately armored?

And because there were no properly designed blow-out panels to prevent the loss of the ship in the first generation, you think that a converted battleship would not have such venting?




=====
The hard part of such a conversion would be what to do about the barbettes. That's a lot of metal to cut through and remove, you'd be much better off to live with it and make missile launchers that would fit inside. Like a giant version of the US Mk11/13/22 launchers, just using Seaslug or Blue Envoy (or even Talos, but you'd need to design a vertical storage magazine).

I'd want a super long ranged SAM with secondary antiship capabilities like Talos back aft, not the basic Seaslug. Probably end up with a heavily redesigned superstructure aft with two Blue Envoy launchers and the associated radars.

I think I'd get rid of most of the 5.25" turrets, leave the forwardmost on each side. The aft 5.25" turret gets replaced with a Seaslug turret. The two midships 5.25" turrets get swapped for 3"/70s. So that's a 5.25", 3"/70, 3"/70, and Seaslug, forward to aft on each side.

 

[Hood]

Blue Envoy was never a go'er for naval ships as far as I am concerned. That delta wing made it like a mini-fighter. The space requirements would have been absurd in reality.
The one thing Britain's early missile developers never got was the need for compactness when designing missiles. Instead they festooned them with boosters, fins, delta wings, extra boosters - anything to make them draggy and twice as wide as they needed to be and longer than six double-decker buses end-to-end just to make sure (I jest slightly).

 

[Purpletrouble]

They would be more than half-ship from 15-inch guns, and protected by superstructure. Nothing would happens with them.

Based on what evidence? Given nobody has ever done this and the people who could have done all ruled it out…

Those generation of SAMs were legendarily fickle electronically.

A broadside from the forward turrets will give blast and whole ship vibration to sensors amidships and weapons aft. To ignore that is to ignore the RN’s own conclusions.

Without SAM's, battleship isn't of much use.

With SAMs neither the SAM or the ship is much use because it wont exist. The cost of such a rebuild would be in excess of a new ship. Read up on the electrical power issues the UK BBs had for a start.

The ship is of use for the 3 requirements I listed: flag, surface to surface and prestige. Those are what it offers and if as the prepostion goes, you want to keep the BBs, then those are the requirements they meet and which you must see as important enough to justify the cost in this AH and whatever resource level of cost/benefit it accepts.

Er, what?

Quite simple. If this is to engage in surface ginnery having SAMs on board is lunacy. Not only will their incredibly fragile directors and radars be knocked out from the ships own gunfire, let alone incoming shredding them entirely - they are a huge explosion risk given the obvious difficulties/impossibility in armouring their high volume stowage.

You do know that the KGVs and Vanguard had turrets at both ends, right? These aren't the weird, compact "All main turrets forward" types.

No idea of your point here. Obviously a proposed SAM conversion would almost certainly be a “missiles aft guns fwd” layout.

Any missile turrets aft would be some 300-400ft away from the big guns, and partly shielded by the entire superstructure.

Irrelevent as above. Your missile directors are not going to survive broadside blasts let alone ship vibration. Again, nobody did this.

The US had no issues with Harpoon cans or Tomahawks in ABLs within 100ft of the rear turret on the Iowas.

The key word (and letter) there is “ABL” which iirc were the ones closest to the guns. These are also turbojet powered with relatively small boosters - a rather different proposition to 60-90 Sea Slugs or even bigger rockets of earlier types with worse hazards. There are also no directors or 984/equivalent to cope with for the SSMs fitnent.

There is just no way you can handwave that away based on installation of systems decades later. As I put originally, I’m sure you could throw some Exocets on amidships and likewise Sea Cat. But not the behemothic systems like Sea Slug (or US equivalent) let alone its proposed successors.

So, because cruisers are inadequately armored, you think that battleships are also inadequately armored?

Volume intensive SAMs cannot be armoured. On a ship that will/may fight surface to surface gunnery that is clearly ludicrous.
Note surf to surf, not land bombarment as later became their sole reason.

And because there were no properly designed blow-out panels to prevent the loss of the ship in the first generation, you think that a converted battleship would not have such venting?

No, why would it, its already insane cost to rebuild them with SAMs, why dont we replace the entire hull and propulsion…

Btw I don’t think “blow out panels” would have saved Hood. This is not an MBT turret and bustle but a massive magazine wholly integrated inside the ship’s hull.

=====
The hard part of such a conversion would be what to do about the barbettes. That's a lot of metal to cut through and remove, you'd be much better off to live with it and make missile launchers that would fit inside. Like a giant version of the US Mk11/13/22 launchers, just using Seaslug or Blue Envoy (or even Talos, but you'd need to design a vertical storage magazine).

I'd want a super long ranged SAM with secondary antiship capabilities like Talos back aft, not the basic Seaslug. Probably end up with a heavily redesigned superstructure aft with two Blue Envoy launchers and the associated radars.

The UK doesnt have Talos nor is it getting it. Since it barely worked at this time (50s conversion peripd), its irrelevent. Sea Slug / Rainbow whatever is the option.

I think I'd get rid of most of the 5.25" turrets, leave the forwardmost on each side. The aft 5.25" turret gets replaced with a Seaslug turret. The two midships 5.25" turrets get swapped for 3"/70s. So that's a 5.25", 3"/70, 3"/70, and Seaslug, forward to aft on each side.

None of that makes sense. The UK managed one Sea Slug design installation. It isnt going to tailer it to legacy barbettes. It clearly takes half a large destroyer, a small vertical 5.25” is a Tartar installation

Differnent gun calibres is pre dreadnought thinking. Either this ship has 5.25” for a reason (good ebough for AA) or it gets rid of them. Having multiple gun types just worsens an already bad problem of providing directors.

None of this makes any sense to subject these ships to such a rebuild. Want SAMs, build the sea slig cruiser or County.

Want (to keep) BBs, do the minimum to them. As the US missile cruiser conversions showed, they were marginally effective (given that 1st generation SAMs barely worked) and were far more valued for their remaining guns and in particular the flagship capable ships.

In this scenario, using hindsight, dont waste silly money on shoehorning in half functioning SAMs, just keep them as is for gunnery and flagship tasks.

In short, want to keep the BBs, do the bare minimum to them as the US did with the Iowas. Want SAMs, build new SAM ships.

 

[Dilandu]

Based on what evidence? Given nobody has ever done this and the people who could have done all ruled it out…

Based on the elementary logic, square-cube law and the fact that all 1950s - 1960s era electronic was shock-tested to make sure it could survive nuclear blasts nearby.

A broadside from the forward turrets will give blast and whole ship vibration to sensors amidships and weapons aft. To ignore that is to ignore the RN’s own conclusions.

Then just didn't turn forward turrets too far to rear.

Quite simple. If this is to engage in surface ginnery having SAMs on board is lunacy. Not only will their incredibly fragile directors and radars be knocked out from the ships own gunfire, let alone incoming shredding them entirely - they are a huge explosion risk given the obvious difficulties/impossibility in armouring their high volume stowage.

You apparently don't realize, that heavy SAM is more efficient anti-ship system than heavy gun?

 

[Scott Kenny]

No idea of your point here. Obviously a proposed SAM conversion would almost certainly be a “missiles aft guns fwd” layout.

Correct. The launchers themselves would be aft.

I was reading your idea/criticism as having launchers at both ends, with 16" guns adjacent. Which would definitely have issues with the

Irrelevent as above. Your missile directors are not going to survive broadside blasts let alone ship vibration. Again, nobody did this.

They did on the US cruiser conversions. Yes, yes, 8" guns are not 16" guns. Basic ship vibrations were no problem...

Nobody did it on battleships because nobody had battleships left. The US had 4.5 battleships. The Iowas and the training ship Mississippi, and even the Iowas got mothballed in 1958. Mississippi was scrapped in 1956, after testing Terrier launchers from 1952 (but without big guns). The RN had Vanguard. Vanguard of course was scrapped in 1959-60.

The key word (and letter) there is “ABL” which iirc were the ones closest to the guns. These are also turbojet powered with relatively small boosters - a rather different proposition to 60-90 Sea Slugs or even bigger rockets of earlier types with worse hazards. There are also no directors or 984/equivalent to cope with for the SSMs fitnent.

There is just no way you can handwave that away based on installation of systems decades later. As I put originally, I’m sure you could throw some Exocets on amidships and likewise Sea Cat. But not the behemothic systems like Sea Slug (or US equivalent) let alone its proposed successors.

The Harpoon cans were closer to the turret than the ABLs. And those cans were completely unmodified from the ones used on PHMs.

No, why would it, its already insane cost to rebuild them with SAMs, why dont we replace the entire hull and propulsion…

You gotta deal with losing some 3000 tons of steel in the shape of the turrets on the KGV, ~1500 tons for Vanguard. How much did the US cruiser conversions get rebuilt? The entire after superstructure.

None of that makes sense. The UK managed one Sea Slug design installation. It isnt going to tailer it to legacy barbettes. It clearly takes half a large destroyer, a small vertical 5.25” is a Tartar installation

Then the RN can buy Terrier/Tartars, because they're obviously too stupid to design a missile launcher to retrofit into any ship with whatever the 5.25" twin turret barbette diameter is.

Differnent gun calibres is pre dreadnought thinking. Either this ship has 5.25” for a reason (good ebough for AA) or it gets rid of them. Having multiple gun types just worsens an already bad problem of providing directors.

Funny, the Iowas kept their 5" guns, as did the cruisers. Long Beach even had a 5" gun on each beam to make room on the centerline for missiles!

None of this makes any sense to subject these ships to such a rebuild. Want SAMs, build the sea slig cruiser or County.

Want (to keep) BBs, do the minimum to them. As the US missile cruiser conversions showed, they were marginally effective (given that 1st generation SAMs barely worked) and were far more valued for their remaining guns and in particular the flagship capable ships.

In this scenario, using hindsight, dont waste silly money on shoehorning in half functioning SAMs, just keep them as is for gunnery and flagship tasks.

In short, want to keep the BBs, do the bare minimum to them as the US did with the Iowas. Want SAMs, build new SAM ships.

Part of the point is to give the BBs a decent SAM because 5"/5.25" guns versus incoming subsonic AShMs doesn't work well. That's your basic Terrier 40km missile, which also gives you twice or more the range of a 5" gun and twice the altitude reached. A supersonic AShM takes an even longer ranged SAM to shoot down.

Because no battleship ever made will survive a 1000lb shaped charge warhead that hits, so you cannot let them hit in the first place.

There's a reason the US gave every single ship since the 1980s at least basic SAM capabilities (Standard MR or Sea Sparrow).



Also, have you seen what a single Talos hit does to a ship? The Talos missile is 3300lbs or so of magnesium alloy airframe, and has 225lbs of explosive onboard. A 16" HE shell weighs 1900lbs and has a 150lb bursting charge. Oh, and Talos hits at about 50% greater speed, too. 50% greater impact weight, with 50% greater bursting charge (ignoring the jet fuel and burning magnesium airframe), at 50% greater impact velocity, for 3.375x greater kinetic energy alone. Any ship not given battleship armor is going to be broken in half with a single hit. I suppose you'd need a nuclear warhead to deal with battleship armor. Whatever the blast didn't directly vaporize, the radiation would kill the crew.

The pictures down at the "Surface to Surface Ship Targets" section at this link show an unarmed Talos impact on a surplus DE. https://www.okieboat.com/Talos firing operations.html Pure KE, fuel, and burning magnesium.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Based on the elementary logic, square-cube law and the fact that all 1950s - 1960s era electronic was shock-tested to make sure it could survive nuclear blasts nearby.

A load of waffle that means nothing. If you think a SAM ship would be operstional post a “nearby” nuke then good luck with that.

Current RN ships have a distressing tendancy to lose sensors and thus weapon capability merely if the water is warm…

BBs routinely damaged their own superstructure and hull from firing, these 15” guns are producing huge forces.

Then just didn't turn forward turrets too far to rear.

Awesome. So its basically ahead fire only. That’s worthwhile. Ever seen a ship doing NGS? a gunline steams back and forth along a line effectively perpendicular to the target direction…

Plus firing ahead tends to damage the bow and for superfiring, turrets below. Acceptable in life/death combat but for NGS?

You apparently don't realize, that heavy SAM is more efficient anti-ship system than heavy gun?

You apparantly dont realise the very well known issues putting SAMs on ships and the very well known issues rebuilding ones, especially wartime era.

Think your logic through - why have guns at all? So why not just build a new all missile ship…

The premise here being “find a way to get the BBs to survive” that is presumably more about the BB we actually know than simply refitting the old one’s ships bell…

Correct. The launchers themselves would be aft.

I was reading your idea/criticism as having launchers at both ends, with 16" guns adjacent. Which would definitely have issues with the

Its not my idea to put missiles on. Iirc all proposals were either replace guns aft, or even double ended.

They did on the US cruiser conversions. Yes, yes, 8" guns are not 16" guns. Basic ship vibrations were no problem...

8” to 15” is a leap. I dont think 8” cruisers damaged themselves with blast.

We dont know how much firing they actually did or how much post firing maintennace there was on the systems…

Nobody did it on battleships because nobody had battleships left. The US had 4.5 battleships. The Iowas and the training ship Mississippi, and even the Iowas got mothballed in 1958. Mississippi was scrapped in 1956, after testing Terrier launchers from 1952 (but without big guns). The RN had Vanguard. Vanguard of course was scrapped in 1959-60.

Not true. The US had 4 Iowas until the 80s. The reason they didnt was that the result was hugely expensive cost and manpower wise but offered little capabiltiy vs a cruiser (channels of fire etc).

The KGVs were all worn to an extent plus they and Vgd all lacked electrical power. The UK couldnt have produced more Sea Slug systems anyway. And was broke.

The Harpoon cans were closer to the turret than the ABLs. And those cans were completely unmodified from the ones used on PHMs.

And yet rather less of an issue than 60-90 Sea Slugs full of rocket fuel - and my point on blast vibration is more directed at the 901/984 than the missiles.

You gotta deal with losing some 3000 tons of steel in the shape of the turrets on the KGV, ~1500 tons for Vanguard. How much did the US cruiser conversions get rebuilt? The entire after superstructure.

Above water installations based on the ones I’ve visited. Horribly vulnerable to incoming fire (as a ship with remaining 15” forward is logically expected to take if it has a surface to surface role - a massive flaw with the never built Sea Slug / 6” cruiser also).

Then the RN can buy Terrier/Tartars, because they're obviously too stupid to design a missile launcher to retrofit into any ship with whatever the 5.25" twin turret barbette diameter is.

Why? Terrier barely works and offers little vs Sea Slug. Tartar we should have and in a more resourced environment might have. Perhaps have a pair of Tartar derivatives sided amidships.

Funny, the Iowas kept their 5" guns, as did the cruisers. Long Beach even had a 5" gun on each beam to make room on the centerline for missiles!

The Iowas 5” were they manned? All of them? With modernised directord for AA? Did they add 3” as well? Which was your plan for a mixed battery.

Post war 5” or 5.25” is of precious little use AA. I’d just mothball them to get crewing down.

Long Beach illustrates the point - guns added by Kennedy iirc as the missiles didnt work.

Part of the point is to give the BBs a decent SAM because 5"/5.25" guns versus incoming subsonic AShMs doesn't work well. That's your basic Terrier 40km missile, which also gives you twice or more the range of a 5" gun and twice the altitude reached. A supersonic AShM takes an even longer ranged SAM to shoot down.

Because no battleship ever made will survive a 1000lb shaped charge warhead that hits, so you cannot let them hit in the first place.

Which is why you have missile armed escorts as I propose. Not spend lunacy money trying to create an armoured big gun SAM ship which is exactly the same dead end the hybrid carrier-battleships were.

The ship is there for a purpose. If defending itself is that purpose its a failure.

Again for that purpose I go back to the requirements: surface to surface actions, flagship and prestige.

There's a reason the US gave every single ship since the 1980s at least basic SAM capabilities (Standard MR or Sea Sparrow).

And when low ship-design impact SR SAMs arrive, Sea Cat in the UK, chuck a few on.

M
Also, have you seen what a single Talos hit does to a ship? The Talos missile is 3300lbs or so of magnesium alloy airframe, and has 225lbs of explosive onboard. A 16" HE shell weighs 1900lbs and has a 150lb bursting charge. Oh, and Talos hits at about 50% greater speed, too. 50% greater impact weight, with 50% greater bursting charge (ignoring the jet fuel and burning magnesium airframe), at 50% greater impact velocity, for 3.375x greater kinetic energy alone. Any ship not given battleship armor is going to be broken in half with a single hit. I suppose you'd need a nuclear warhead to deal with battleship armor. Whatever the blast didn't directly vaporize, the radiation would kill the crew.

So why have battleship guns at all? Build more missile only ships.

The premise here is to keep the UK’s battleships.

The pictures down at the "Surface to Surface Ship Targets" section at this link show an unarmed Talos impact on a surplus DE. https://www.okieboat.com/Talos firing operations.html Pure KE, fuel, and burning magnesium.

The clear lesson of hindsight is “want SAMs, build new ships” and “just dont rebuild old ships”.

The premise here is “how to get UK BBs to survice to 80s” ala USN Iowas. To do that look at what they do offer: surface gunnery, flag and prestige - and then value that benefit against the AH level resources (assumed to be “much more UK wealth etc) such that it is worth it. Unless its a silly AH where all the oil in the world flows out of wokey hole, resource constraints will still require that we avoid wasting funds. The money and effort to turn a KGV/V/Lion(if they are around) into a BBG would be better on having a few BB and more xxGs.

 

[Dilandu]

A load of waffle that means nothing. If you think a SAM ship would be operstional post a “nearby” nuke then good luck with that.

Sigh.



This is a USN test, but I hope you got the picture.

 

[Dilandu]

Which is why you have missile armed escorts as I propose. Not spend lunacy money trying to create an armoured big gun SAM ship which is exactly the same dead end the hybrid carrier-battleships were.

So essentially you suggest having massive escort for defenseless ship, that could perform only a very limited variety of functions - and you claim that it would be more cost-effective than a refit? Sorry to disappoint you, but RN did not exactly have that many missile-armed escorts in 1960s. There were only eight County-class destroyers, and building additional series would be MORE costly than installing Sea Slug on Vanguard.

 

[Purpletrouble]

Sigh.

View attachment 728394

This is a USN test, but I hope you got the picture.

Sigh yourself to sleep if you wish, but it wont change that large SAM systems on a legacy big gun ship are going to have prohibitively massive issues with blast and vibration from gun firing. Its just physics son.

So essentially you suggest having massive escort for defenseless ship, that could perform only a very limited variety of functions

Well, err, the US did exactly that until the end of the Cold War…

Flagship and surface gunnery capabilities were also what kept the US cruiser conversions going after the other types had been retired.

Flagship and big(ish) guns also kept the last RN cruisers into the 70s.

Flagship and medium(ish) guns (plus helo) was what made the Counties really useful ships upto and including the Falklands. Less so their guided telegraph pole system.

Flagship, surface gunnery and prestige kept Vanguard until the late 50s. In this AH of greater resources, undoubtedly she’d (and perhaps best KGVs) have survived longer for the same reasons until a crunch point.

- and you claim that it would be more cost-effective than a refit?

Never has the word “refit” been so abused as to encompass replacing 1000s of tons of turrets with dozens of large SAMs and their guidance radars plus wholesale replacement and upgrade of the ship’s electrical system.

Do some research into the contemporary carrier rebuilds and the Type 15/16 destroyer conversions. Cheap and quick dont spring to mind.

Then look at the Tiger class original hin build and the CCH conversions and also whilst you’re at it, the Leander class frigate conversions.

There is a theme here. It says “dont rebuild things you bloody fool”.

Sorry to disappoint you, but RN did not exactly have that many missile-armed escorts in 1960s. There were only eight County-class destroyers, and building additional series would be MORE costly than installing Sea Slug on Vanguard.

Errr, you realise they built the Counties as this was far more cost effective than rebuilding cruisers? And yet in your world they’re less cost effective than rebuilding a battleship. Rightho.


Yet again. The premise is “get the BBs to the 80s”. As with Iowas, do as little as possible, value them for flag, big guns and prestige. Throw on some SSM / CIWS later on.

Do not try and make them hybrid battle-gun/missile-ships. Just build more DLGs.

 

[Dilandu]

Sigh yourself to sleep if you wish, but it wont change that large SAM systems on a legacy big gun ship are going to have prohibitively massive issues with blast and vibration from gun firing. Its just physics son.

So essentially you just handwave the "issues" without actually bothering to think about them. For the record - the battleships by the end of WW2 were basically covered with increasingly sophisticated radars, and blasts of main guns did not cause much problems for equipment (optics actually suffered more). So why do you assume that 1950s missile director radars - mainly based on WW2 tech, by the way - would have some kind of "issues" that 1940s radars did not have, I utterly fail to see.

Well, err, the US did exactly that until the end of the Cold War…

USN have much more (or even MUCH MORE) money than RN. While for USN missile-armed escorts weren't big problem, RN for the most of 1960s have only eight destroyers equipped with area-defense SAM's for all purposes. Detaching even two of them to protect big lumbering battleship would be problematic at best.

Flagship and surface gunnery capabilities were also what kept the US cruiser conversions going after the other types had been retired.

And what do you know? They didn't face the dreaded "issues" from firing their own 152-mm and 203-mm guns.

Flagship and medium(ish) guns (plus helo) was what made the Counties really useful ships upto and including the Falklands. Less so their guided telegraph pole system.

You clearly have a very prejudiced view on early SAM's.

Never has the word “refit” been so abused as to encompass replacing 1000s of tons of turrets with dozens of large SAMs and their guidance radars plus wholesale replacement and upgrade of the ship’s electrical system.

This is REFIT. And yeah, it would still be cheaper than building more County-class ships)

 

[Purpletrouble]

So essentially you just handwave the "issues" without actually bothering to think about them.

Is that intentionally ironic? Either way I love it!

The one handwaving is the one pretending you can fit large SAM systems onto big gun armoured ships in any kind of sensible way, operationally or cost wise.

For the record - the battleships by the end of WW2 were basically covered with increasingly sophisticated radars, and blasts of main guns did not cause much problems for equipment (optics actually suffered more). So why do you assume that 1950s missile director radars - mainly based on WW2 tech, by the way - would have some kind of "issues" that 1940s radars did not have, I utterly fail to see.

Quite. You do indeed fail to see. 984, 901 are not the same as the stuff they had from the 40s. You’ll have to do your own research, this site is a good starting point.

USN have much more (or even MUCH MORE) money than RN. While for USN missile-armed escorts weren't big problem, RN for the most of 1960s have only eight destroyers equipped with area-defense SAM's for all purposes. Detaching even two of them to protect big lumbering battleship would be problematic at best.

Errr the battleship is with the carrier. Providing flag and surface gunnery protection. The DLGs are already present in this task force…

Bearing in mind the actual effective air defence comes from the carrier’s fighters and AEW. Less so the missile system which was big, lumbering and very problematic to boot.

And what do you know? They didn't face the dreaded "issues" from firing their own 152-mm and 203-mm guns.

Which means what for 381mm guns? Apply your “square cube law” to those physics!

Oh, and their missile systems were increasingly deactivated by this point.

Which illustrates my point that flag and big guns are important capabilities if you have greater resources.

Noting the Counties were also valued for those functions rather than Sea Slug.

You clearly have a very prejudiced view on early SAM's.

History has a post judged view of them thanks to what is called evidence. They didnt really work, were maintenance intensive and very fragile. Even the 2nd generation weren’t a lot better as the UK experienced in the Falklands. Even today just weather can knock them out (heat / storm damage).

This is REFIT. And yeah, it would still be cheaper than building more County-class ships)

No. Perhaps English isnt your first language so I apologise if so, but that isnt a refit. The RN always refers to such work as rebuild or modernisation because the scale and scope are an order of magnitude greater. Refits are scheduled works but are usually incorporated in such rebuild/modernisation programs as sensibly they are aligned timewise.

And yet they built Counties rather than rebuild cruisers. Almost as if they actually knew what was more cost effective… vs someone on the internet decades later desperately making stuff up.