Warsaw Pact Britain - naval strategy and other considerations

[Martes]

I am really loving that Valiant-Victor!

Thanks!
Combining them produced an extremely neat submarine.

Cleaned the textures, and since I replaced the propeller, I thought I can remove the auxiliary low-speed propellers from the aft planes, streamlining the boat even more.

​

 

[Martes]

A comparison between the Soviet and the British versions of the Victor:

​

Replaced the propellers on the Oscars with British version, making it conspicuously closer to Oscar-II

​

And got rid of the last traces of Soviet hull design on the Kara/Bristol, removing the oversized torpedo tubes, the awkward raise of the flight deck and enclosing the hull aft:

​

Giving them a long and sleek silhouette reminiscent of the old heavy cruisers

 

[Martes]

And I found an interesting (if schematic) map in Miller's "Modern Naval Combat", that I modified a little to illustrate the change to North Atlantic situation in this timeline:



Notes:
The US supply line goes to Ireland, of course, and to south of France that is just not visible here.
Obviously I haven't (yet) added new RAF patrol routes that would extend much further into the ocean.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And I found an interesting (if schematic) map in Miller's "Modern Naval Combat", that I modified a little to illustrate the change to North Atlantic situation in this timeline:

View attachment 772012

Notes:
The US supply line goes to Ireland, of course, and to south of France that is just not visible here.
Obviously I haven't (yet) added new RAF patrol routes that would extend much further into the ocean.

I'm not sure that the US would be doing a lot of REFORGER convoys to Ireland once the shooting started.

• For one thing, Ireland is well within TBM and tactical aircraft range of RedUK.
• For another thing, anything offloaded at Ireland then needs to be re-loaded and taken past the tip of England to get to France. Or it needs to be able to fly itself to France and then to Germany.

So while the US would definitely keep sending garrison troops to Ireland and probably have aircraft land there, I don't see the same kind of buildup of men and materiel like what happened in WW2.

 

[Martes]

So while the US would definitely keep sending garrison troops to Ireland and probably have aircraft land there, I don't see the same kind of buildup of men and materiel like what happened in WW2.

Of course, that goes to the bay of Biscay ports - La Rochelle, Coruna, Bilbao, etc.

The NATO railway network and supply routes would then span from Spain through France and Germany and to the north. The question is how to supply Norway. I am not sure a direct Denmark-Norway tunnel is technically possible (but it would be digged if it is), so there would a very strong attempt to lure Sweden from neutrality.

Thing is, the whole theater geometry becomes different. Instead of straightforwardly horizontal, West-East direction, it becomes more like a hook, coming from the West, but then going vertically, from Spain towards the Arctic.

For another thing, anything offloaded at Ireland then needs to be re-loaded and taken past the tip of England to get to France.

I suspect anything landed in Ireland stays in Ireland and it's purpose is to be a thorn in the British side for as long as possible. Until it's launched over the sea into Britain, that is.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Thing is, the whole theater geometry becomes different. Instead of straightforwardly horizontal, West-East direction, it becomes more like a hook, coming from the West, but then going vertically, from Spain towards the Arctic.

Very much so.

I may need to grab a few maps to color in so I can better picture things... Anyone have a B&W map of Europe with a divided Germany and the Brit/US/French areas of responsibility?

I suspect anything landed in Ireland stays in Ireland and it's purpose is to be a thorn in the British side for as long as possible. Until it's launched over the sea into Britain, that is.

Agreed. So Pershings, ATACMs, etc.

 

[Martes]

I may need to grab a few maps to color in so I can better picture things... Anyone have a B&W map of Europe with a divided Germany and the Brit/US/French areas of responsibility?

What we would need is a map of British army deployment circa 56-57, to realize what they could technically keep at that moment.

And that's not much.

​

 

[Scott Kenny]

What we would need is a map of British army deployment circa 56-57, to realize what they could technically keep at that moment.

And that's not much.

View attachment 772317​

Huh. I was under the impression that the UK had a much bigger chunk of West Germany. Was I confusing that with the situation in Berlin? (I was only 11 when the Wall Fell.)

 

[Martes]

Huh. I was under the impression that the UK had a much bigger chunk of West Germany.

It had, but only until 1949. Then the transition to West German government began, and in 1955 Bundeswehr was fully activated, as wiki tells us, and the deployment finalized into a map in the post above. At the time, RAF controlled kind of 3-4 airfields and the army had 6k soldiers for their border sector.

I assume that in preparation for the Switch, the British will organize some kind of rotation to cover the withdrawal from West Germany.

Situation in West Berlin, though, would be different, as there appear to be a lot of troops there (I saw a figure of 3k), and it can be suggested the British keep their sector as it is.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It had, but only until 1949. Then the transition to West German government began, and in 1955 Bundeswehr was fully activated, as wiki tells us, and the deployment finalized into a map in the post above. At the time, RAF controlled kind of 3-4 airfields and the army had 6k soldiers for their border sector.

I assume that in preparation for the Switch, the British will organize some kind of rotation to cover the withdrawal from West Germany.

With that small a sector of control, I can't see the British keeping it when they flip sides.

If the UK went red in 1947, that'd be a much bigger threat to NATO.

Situation in West Berlin, though, would be different, as there appear to be a lot of troops there (I saw a figure of 3k), and it can be suggested the British keep their sector as it is.

Yes, I'd assume that the Brits would keep their sector of West Berlin. Which would end up with a very different Berlin Wall.

 

[Martes]

With that small a sector of control, I can't see the British keeping it when they flip sides.

Absolutely, they would be too busy figuring how to get out of there as cleanly as possible.

Yes, I'd assume that the Brits would keep their sector of West Berlin. Which would end up with a very different Berlin Wall.

And much smaller and less comfortable West Berlin.

The West Germany, however, is already formed and is unlikely to change significantly.

Ireland is well within TBM and tactical aircraft range of RedUK.

TBMs and other heavy weaponry for the British army. Just import Soviet hardware or there was something peculiarly local that never got implemented? What would interest the Army in those conditions?

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

Somewhat aside, but related to the Atlantic theater - is there any comprehensive and unclassified source about the RN vs. USN exercises in 60s-80s? How they were set up, what happened during them, conclusions and all that. The British, if I am not mistaken, played (or still play?) the red side in a lot of NATO exercises, and that also could be useful here.

 

[Yellow Palace]

The NATO railway network and supply routes would then span from Spain through France and Germany and to the north. The question is how to supply Norway. I am not sure a direct Denmark-Norway tunnel is technically possible (but it would be digged if it is), so there would a very strong attempt to lure Sweden from neutrality.

Norway's position starts to look very isolated ITTL - it's a major threat to the USSR-UK supply lines, and the UK is a threat to its supply lines. Added to which there were quite strong economic ties between the UK and Norway. I'd guess there's a diplomatic effort to separate Norway from NATO, likely trying to get it (and Sweden) into a similar position as Finland.

Absolutely, they would be too busy figuring how to get out of there as cleanly as possible.

The thing is, the UK hasn't historically been a continental land power. With a withdrawal from Germany, I'd expect the Army to transition into a force with responsibility for home defence and limited war. The cost of a large-scale amphibious assault against Europe would likely be seen as prohibitive even in this scenario, but raiding forces are a distinct possibility.

If there's a substantial field army, it's likely to be in Northern Ireland with a view to denying the whole island of Ireland to NATO as a dagger at the throat of Great Britain. Opinion is likely to be divided on whether Cromwell and William III are inspirational figures or cautionary tales. Taking Iceland and/or the Azores to help open up the sea lanes is also likely to be a priority, along with Norway if it's not been pried loose from NATO diplomatically.

TBMs and other heavy weaponry for the British army. Just import Soviet hardware or there was something peculiarly local that never got implemented? What would interest the Army in those conditions?

Just go Soviet, tbh. The British Army was mostly British-equipped anyway, apart from nuclear-capable systems. On the other hand, it's distinctly possible that the USSR expects the British Army to join it in East Germany. That'd be logistically difficult unless they're almost entirely Soviet-equipped - and might be politically difficult for the UK. Actually, putting the British forces in the Northwestern TVD to deal with Norway might be more convenient for both sides.

I did wonder if Blue Water might go ahead, but buying Luna-M would probably be a quicker way to replace Corporal. Although I don't know how keen the Soviets would be on sharing nuclear weapons, or letting the UK put its own warheads on them. They might wind up with Osa instead of Rapier, as it's an obvious equivalent to Mauler when the British PT.428 is abandoned and has the key advantage of actually working. Getting S-300 as a replacement for Thunderbird in due course is an interesting thought!

On the tank side: Chobham armour was first developed in the UK in the 1960s, before being exported to the US. The USSR didn't adopt a similar type of armour until 1983. It's possible that ITTL the USSR adopts a kind of non-explosive reactive armour ten or fifteen years later, and that the US goes with Leopard 2-type spaced and perforated armour for the M1.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On the infantry side, we'll also likely see the EM-2 rifle come into full service in the 1950s with both the British Army and the Royal Marines. Probably the TARDEN machine gun will be procured as well.

 

[Scott Kenny]

TBMs and other heavy weaponry for the British army. Just import Soviet hardware or there was something peculiarly local that never got implemented? What would interest the Army in those conditions?

Probably just import Soviet hardware.

Somewhat aside, but related to the Atlantic theater - is there any comprehensive and unclassified source about the RN vs. USN exercises in 60s-80s? How they were set up, what happened during them, conclusions and all that. The British, if I am not mistaken, played (or still play?) the red side in a lot of NATO exercises, and that also could be useful here.

I'm sure they exist, but I haven't seen one. Haven't been looking for one, though.

On the tank side: Chobham armour was first developed in the UK in the 1960s, before being exported to the US. The USSR didn't adopt a similar type of armour until 1983. It's possible that ITTL the USSR adopts a kind of non-explosive reactive armour ten or fifteen years later, and that the US goes with Leopard 2-type spaced and perforated armour for the M1.

I didn't think Chobham was NERA, but was a specific composite layout?

 

[Martes]

Norway's position starts to look very isolated ITTL - it's a major threat to the USSR-UK supply lines, and the UK is a threat to its supply lines. Added to which there were quite strong economic ties between the UK and Norway. I'd guess there's a diplomatic effort to separate Norway from NATO, likely trying to get it (and Sweden) into a similar position as Finland.

A question, though, if this effort had any chance to succeed.

I know very little, unfortunately, about the state of mind in Norway mid-Cold War (except for one episode from Sandbaggers and two from Warship), so if there were any politicians or movements that could have been exploited by both sides, please point them out.

US will be definitely very desperately interested in keeping Norway in NATO and to have a Canada-Greenland-Iceland-Norway chain and also to pull Sweden from neutrality in order to assure Europe-Scandinavia supply line.

So it may go both ways, but both involve Sweden choosing a side, probably. To keep things more interesting and balanced, I would suppose they stay Blue. Also because I think the US, once it gets over the initial shock, would move very quickly and assertively, and UK and USSR would have to spend a certain amount of time figuring out their own issues with the new alliance, securing overseas posessions, and feeling less urgency because of perceived win achieved already.

Just go Soviet, tbh.

Probably just import Soviet hardware.

Right

I doubt the bloc would need British army in Germany, rather the main role would be taking control of Ireland if everything starts to go hot, and colonial operations.

But this timeline introduces TBMs, IRBMs and maybe even ICBMs into the army inventory.

Getting S-300 as a replacement for Thunderbird in due course is an interesting thought!

It would be quite funny, because the Army would have S-200 and eventually S-300, and the Navy's coastal emplacements would feature shore-based Sea Darts at the same time. But I guess that's exactly how it works.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I doubt the bloc would need British army in Germany, rather the main role would be taking control of Ireland if everything starts to go hot, and colonial operations.

That would be a great boon to the ComBloc in general, as the British Army was built around colonial operations.

I somehow suspect that the first signs of things going hot would be Northern Ireland going insane with violence, so good luck trying to hold the entire island!

But this timeline introduces TBMs, IRBMs and maybe even ICBMs into the army inventory.

Probably not fixed ICBMs, on the grounds that there's just no good places to put any silos in the UK (pun not intended, but I'm keeping it!)

But definitely mobile missiles of all sizes, with any ICBMs either Rail or wheeled.

 

[Martes]

I somehow suspect that the first signs of things going hot would be Northern Ireland going insane with violence, so good luck trying to hold the entire island!

Oh, yes. But that is what the army would be training all those years for - taking and securing the whole island. With provisions for using tactical nukes, gas masks and all that, full apocalypse mode.

that there's just no good places to put any silos in the UK

Are you sure some remote islands around Scotland are not suitable for this?

with any ICBMs either Rail or wheeled.

Definitely. And just picture appropriate Thomas the Engine episodes.

So it may go both ways, but both involve Sweden choosing a side, probably. To keep things more interesting and balanced, I would suppose they stay Blue.

Accordingly, for now I'd consider Norway and Sweden Blue, Bahamas and Bermudas Red (would also make the Caribbean map rather interesting). That should create some symmetry (and possibly lay some additional background for this timeline's Caribbean Crisis).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Oh, yes. But that is what the army would be training all those years for - taking and securing the whole island. With provisions for using tactical nukes, gas masks and all that, full apocalypse mode.

And the IRA reinforced with Green Berets doing their "training the locals" routine to make life very difficult for the British even before things go all mushroom-cloudy.

For that matter, there'd probably be a permanent Green Beret presence on Ireland as soon as the Green Berets existed. And UK going Red might prompt the US to establish the Green Berets in the 1950s instead of the 1960s.

Are you sure some remote islands around Scotland are not suitable for this?

Geologically, yes, there's many chunks of granite up there suitable to hold some silos. (bedrock at or above the water table)

Logistically, heck no! Lack of beaches and/or port facilities able to offload all the digging equipment and however many missiles that rock gets. Ignoring the miserable weather up there in the North Sea/North Atlantic while working.

You'd have to build a pier, blast a road to where you're putting the silo(s), offload the digging equipment, dig the hole(s), take most of the digging equipment back, make the silos, offload the missiles and load the silos, then move the last of the construction equipment back down the road to the pier and haul it to the next location. Repeat some 100 times. And, this assumes that you have ships able to offload the construction equipment and missile carrier.

Oh, plus you'd have to figure out secure communication lines to and from those rocks. In Winter North Atlantic weather, and with your opponents attempting to tap submarine cables, Ivy Bells style.

 

[Martes]

And the IRA reinforced with Green Berets doing their "training the locals" routine to make life very difficult for the British even before things go all mushroom-cloudy.

For that matter, there'd probably be a permanent Green Beret presence on Ireland as soon as the Green Berets existed. And UK going Red might prompt the US to establish the Green Berets in the 1950s instead of the 1960s.

Absolutely. The locals would relish it, while the border would look like Korean DMZ.

Add to that a constant British naval semi-blockade of the island, i.e. everything serious would have to be brought by submarines and landed in the dead of night.

And the Army would definitely realize that with each passing year the task would become more and more complicated, so there would be some really crazy plans.

Opinion is likely to be divided on whether Cromwell and William III are inspirational figures or cautionary tales.

There would be factions for both of those opinions, and about Henry VIII as well.

Logistically, heck no!

Sounds like a perfect labour camp setup, but yes, it's too cartoonish even for that reality. Much easier to build additional SSBNs and turn them out to pasture.

 

[Yellow Palace]

On the infantry side, we'll also likely see the EM-2 rifle come into full service in the 1950s with both the British Army and the Royal Marines. Probably the TARDEN machine gun will be procured as well.

Not with a 1957-1958 PoD - that ship had already sailed.

A question, though, if this effort had any chance to succeed.

I have no idea, frankly. But it's likely to be tried. In general any country that's got closer ties to the UK than to the US at least has the possibility of remaining in its orbit. Remember that the UK in this time period is still a major (albeit declining) economic player.

I somehow suspect that the first signs of things going hot would be Northern Ireland going insane with violence, so good luck trying to hold the entire island!

The Cod Wars would also be interesting, as they would be seen (perhaps by both sides) as a wider contest for control of Iceland. They got hot enough, and involved enough Cold War drama, with Iceland and the UK both being in NATO.

Are you sure some remote islands around Scotland are not suitable for this?

Not even remotely suitable for strategic weapons emplacement. They'd be horribly vulnerable to attack by, well, almost anything.

And the IRA reinforced with Green Berets doing their "training the locals" routine to make life very difficult for the British even before things go all mushroom-cloudy.

There's the slight caveat there that the British Army IOTL, while it was obviously an agent of the UK state, was primarily there to keep the peace and went to reasonable lengths not to cause unnecessary escalation. Not always successfully, of course. But there was a significant school of thought that if they were allowed to take the kid gloves off, they'd be able to destroy the Republican paramilitary groups in fairly short order.

ITTL, if they're not worried about the opinion of the public or of the United States, the kid gloves may well come off. Not saying it'll work... but they'll probably try. Ironically this probably means you don't get Loyalist paramilitaries because the UK state wades in so heavily on their side.

Logistically, heck no! Lack of beaches and/or port facilities able to offload all the digging equipment and however many missiles that rock gets. Ignoring the miserable weather up there in the North Sea/North Atlantic while working.

When the UK was looking at test sites for Blue Streak, Benbecula (in the Outer Hebrides) was considered much too remote. Woomera (in the Australian outback) was chosen instead.

You also don't want to put those labour camps in the Outer Hebrides. A decent number of people going to them will be from the Irish Republican movement, and the last people you want them around is Gaelic-speaking Catholics with a very similar axe to grind against the UK government.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Cod Wars would also be interesting, as they would be seen (perhaps by both sides) as a wider contest for control of Iceland. They got hot enough, and involved enough Cold War drama, with Iceland and the UK both being in NATO.

Probably. (I'm not that familiar with the Cod Wars)

There's the slight caveat there that the British Army IOTL, while it was obviously an agent of the UK state, was primarily there to keep the peace and went to reasonable lengths not to cause unnecessary escalation. Not always successfully, of course. But there was a significant school of thought that if they were allowed to take the kid gloves off, they'd be able to destroy the Republican paramilitary groups in fairly short order.

ITTL, if they're not worried about the opinion of the public or of the United States, the kid gloves may well come off. Not saying it'll work... but they'll probably try. Ironically this probably means you don't get Loyalist paramilitaries because the UK state wades in so heavily on their side.

Erm. I'm not so sure.

 

[Martes]

But there was a significant school of thought that if they were allowed to take the kid gloves off, they'd be able to destroy the Republican paramilitary groups in fairly short order.

ITTL, if they're not worried about the opinion of the public or of the United States, the kid gloves may well come off. Not saying it'll work... but they'll probably try. Ironically this probably means you don't get Loyalist paramilitaries because the UK state wades in so heavily on their side.

Are there any outlines for those plans? I would very much like to read into their thinking.

The Cod Wars would also be interesting, as they would be seen (perhaps by both sides) as a wider contest for control of Iceland. They got hot enough, and involved enough Cold War drama, with Iceland and the UK both being in NATO.

My basic assumption is that the Cod Wars ITTL would morph into a silent, cold, but very active conflict centering around the GIUK sonar array lines. I almost surely expect US taking practical control of Iceland, with army bases, air bases, missiles etc. very quickly. Maybe even before completely securing the situation in Canada.

I would also think that the UK (and the USSR will definitely support this) would be very willing to take possession of the Faroe islands during the Canada standoff if it would be possible at all. That may (or may not) alienate the rest of Norway, but having an airbase for long-range bombers and interceptors on the Faroes makes them invaluable for almost any North Atlantic scenario.

You also don't want to put those labour camps in the Outer Hebrides. A decent number of people going to them will be from the Irish Republican movement, and the last people you want them around is Gaelic-speaking Catholics with a very similar axe to grind against the UK government.

As picturesque as the image is, I definitely didn't think it a workable plan

 

[Yellow Palace]

Erm. I'm not so sure.

Me neither.

Are there any outlines for those plans? I would very much like to read into their thinking.

I suspect nobody ever wrote them down, at least not if they had any sense. But there was very much a feeling in parts, at least by the 1980s, that they'd identified enough of the key people on the Republican side that they could take them all out in one night - only the politicians wouldn't let them. It's a little like the feeling in the US that if Washington had let the military fight 'properly', it could have won Vietnam.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I suspect nobody ever wrote them down, at least not if they had any sense. But there was very much a feeling in parts, at least by the 1980s, that they'd identified enough of the key people on the Republican side that they could take them all out in one night - only the politicians wouldn't let them. It's a little like the feeling in the US that if Washington had let the military fight 'properly', it could have won Vietnam.

The US did win Vietnam, militarily.

 

[Martes]

I suspect nobody ever wrote them down, at least not if they had any sense. But there was very much a feeling in parts, at least by the 1980s, that they'd identified enough of the key people on the Republican side that they could take them all out in one night - only the politicians wouldn't let them.

And there I hoped for that there is somewhere a shelf full of paper files with labels "Ireland - takeover plan C-03 with landing operations annex", "Ireland - interim military government", and so on

 

[Martes]

Since there is no reliable hull plan of the Invincible (not as far as I know) - it may be possible to reconstruct something from the deck plans, but it's not easy - I thought to try and fit a shortened hull of the Kirov (!).

The rationale here is that if the ship is developed as a part of the Type 43 programme, the resulting aircraft-carrying anti-submarine cruiser (very Soviet-ish concept to begin with) may just as well contain an extended sonar array and cruiser-like hull with less constraints on the displacement.

So tentatively, the concept model - don't take it too seriously, at least not yet - might look like this:

​

 

[Scott Kenny]

I suspect that the bow would be a deck lower, to clear everything people wanted up front.

SAM, AShM, and the ski jump.

 

[Martes]

I suspect that the bow would be a deck lower, to clear everything people wanted up front.

The level of the deck on the forecastle is not finalized, but the enclosure you see includes the bulwarks (just like on the original ship), so the forecastle deck would be somewhere at the hull break line, just a little below the flight deck, as I see it for now.

The minimum set of systems I think to install:
- 1 Sea Dart launcher with anti-air (SDMk2), anti-surface(SD-ASuW/NIGS) and anti-submarine (SS-N-16) missiles in single magazine
- 3 (2 sets forward, 1 aft) 6x8 Sea Wolf vertical launchers
- 3 (1 forward, 2 aft) pairs of AK-630
- 4 (2 forward, 2 aft with one per side) RBU-6000
- (monstrous, kind of a British implementation of MGK-355 Polinom/Zvezda M-2 sized system) hull mounted sonar in forward bulb with complementing VDS

The size of the hangar remains unchanged, it's just the fore entry is sharper and longer.

It would be possible to move the ski-jump a little forward, making the runway longer.

The Sea Dart launcher, however, would have to be moved closer to the island and the starboard side, otherwise it blocks the possibility for the VSTOL AEW/ASW aircraft (or anything else with wingspan wider than the regular Harrier) to take off.

Total displacement would be circa 24,000 tons, and hopefully could reach 30 knots to maintain formation speeds.

No heavy AShMs for this size of the hull (it is a shortened Kirov, more or less with the SS-N-19 compartment taken out), but since it's an overgrown AAW/ASW ship, I didn't consider them to be in the initial requirement. We have the Oscars for that.

 

[Martes]

Next iteration, just to show where this is going:

​

Note how she begins to resemble a blown-up version of the Type 43 studies.

 

[Scott Kenny]

May still want to lower those bulwarks, or rather keep them the same overall length but flared out wider. This may come with starting that flare a deck or so lower, so the focsl weather deck is a foot or two wider and the width across the top of the bulwarks is another foot or two wider still.

Bow shape like a Burke, is what I'm kinda picturing.

 

[Martes]

The forecastle is a very problematic part even referencing the original Invincibles, because there were three bloody different configurations there - later config was a deck higher and with additional bulwark. There will be a lot of changes forward before it's finalized.

 

[Martes]

Digging around the materials for Invincible and the Vickers light carrier, I noticed another amusing detail -



which for this timeline means I found a designation for AK-630 system and it's radar

 

[Martes]

I think I sorted out the weapon setup.

I incorporated some of the features from Vickers light carrier and the Australian CVS proposal, resulting in moving the superstructure further to starboard, which enabled to free the runway from the aircraft lifts and somewhat enlarge the hangar.

Hard as I tried, there is really no place for conventional Sea Dart launcher if we want to operate the VSTOL AEW. So the only real option is some kind of VLS. Since the development of the ship is assumed as concurrent or even slightly behind the Kirov, it's possible to utilize the naval S-300 launch system (revolving magazine under a launch point, that is), providing a place for 64 missiles from the initially intended set (SD2, SD2-AS, SS-N-16). Default loadout, probably - 40 (5x8) anti-air, 16 (2x8) anti-surface and 8 (1x8) anti-submarine missiles, plus 144 (3x6x8) close range Sea Wolf missiles. Should be enough to ensure some degree of survivability.

The hangar, similar to the Australian proposal, fits 14 Harriers and 4 helicopters.

The forecastle deck is in line with the flight deck now, because the anchors have to be clear of the sonar, and that means forward and high.

Added an ESM/ECM fit on the mast, Sea Wolf radars to sides of the superstructure, flight controller cabin and additional air intakes.

With some possible adjustments and pending placement of various small details, this would be the building configuration of the ship.

​

 

[Martes]

Somewhere along the way, I found a model for Hermes, and put a knife to it. Had to totally remake the hull, as it was a rectangular abomination, but I tried to make as good use as possible of the deck and details.

Otherwise the usual. Soviet(ish) radars (Top Steer + Strut Pair), ESM/ECM set as on other large ships, two Sea Wolf double-rail launchers aft, two Sea Dragon systems forward on sponsons.

And I indulged myself in moving the anchors a deck higher to better conform the Majestic-class style I used for the command cruiser.

 

[Martes]

Turns out the Centaurs have a very peculiar hull form, being fuller forward and with a long and narrow run aft, that apparently could make any attempt at missile cruiser conversion quite difficult.

It may be still possible to fit some launchers forward, near the ski-jump, and a sonar under the keel, but generally they are rather fine as they are.

With the introduction of Invincible-class (see post above), which, by the way, even IRL were referred as "navy's newest anti-submarine cruiser" at launch

View: https://youtu.be/aUgK076pF5c?si=G53j1MKLBaKnBoso&t=70


and ITTL even more so, the eventual replacement for the Centaurs would likely be a full-carrier version of the command cruiser hull.

 

[Martes]

Very small and almost purely stylistic touch - replaced the funnel with more modern, rectangular and inclined outwards. This should give them a slightly less vintage appearance.

 

[Martes]

Since the Hermes bulb was, after all, a very first and experimental ski-jump, and later variants as installed on Illustrious, Ark Royal, and later Cavour were much less, ehm, imposing (same 12 degrees, just structurally cut), I thought that since I am going to represent a series modernization for all 4 ships of the class, with a lot of new electronics and equipment, I thought I could allow myself to install the serial ski-jump configuration as well.

 

[Martes]

I circle around descriptions of various period projects, and seem to encounter everpresent influence of Lord Mountbatten all the time. Apparently he was the driving force behind P1154, nuclear submarines, technology transfer processes, etc, etc, etc. On the other hand, a lot, just a lot of sources attribute him this or that degree of Soviet connection or sympathies. Considering all this, his figure becomes very central to this timeline. The '79 Irish bombing (which would likely happen with heavy support from the other side of the pond) would be even more significant than IRL, because at that point he may very well be supreme commander naval anglo-soviet forces or something.

 

[Yellow Palace]

which, by the way, even IRL were referred as "navy's newest anti-submarine cruiser" at launch

They also had a lot of cruiser design features, and developed out of non-through-deck helicopter cruisers that bore a certain resemblance to the broadly contemporary Project 1123, ANDREA DORIA and JEANNE D'ARC.

The idea that they were designed as light aircraft carriers, and only described as cruisers to trick the Treasury, doesn't have much basis in fact and seems to be a retrospective justification for a happy accident.

On the other hand, a lot, just a lot of sources attribute him this or that degree of Soviet connection or sympathies.

Ironically he's also associated with conspiracy theories around overthrowing Harold Wilson (as a supposed Soviet agent or sympathiser) and installing Mountbatten as Prime Minister. From which I conclude that Mountbatten - as an influential military, political, and royal figure - is ideally suited to being attached to people's beliefs.

The '79 Irish bombing (which would likely happen with heavy support from the other side of the pond) would be even more significant than IRL, because at that point he may very well be supreme commander naval anglo-soviet forces or something.

I suspect in such a case one could imagine Mountbatten holding the title of Lord High Admiral and consolidating a fair bit of power. I'd also imagine that he'd (a) be unlikely to be taking his holidays in a hostile foreign country, (b) if he did, any US advisors to the Provisional (?) IRA would be saying 'please, please, please DO NOT blow up senior military leaders from a nuclear-armed state', and (c) his security detail would be much heavier and of the shoot now, shoot some more later to make sure, propensity.

None of which is to say that the Provos wouldn't try to assassinate him. But they'd probably have a harder time of it. On the other hand, as they themselves pointed out, they only have to be lucky once.

If the UK heads in the direction of communism, there's a potentially amusing side-effect: the original IRA split in 1969 between the Catholic nationalist Provisionals, and the Marxist Official IRA - which was initially the larger faction. The way that interacts with a more left-wing, Soviet-aligned UK could get rather interesting.

 

[Martes]

From which I conclude that Mountbatten - as an influential military, political, and royal figure - is ideally suited to being attached to people's beliefs.

It is bloody difficult to determine the degree of yellowishness of various sources dedicated to him. Some books seem more serious than others, but it's more about the form, less the contents.

He was very central to both military and technological policy, of that we can be sure, and if we had to pick one naval character that apparently could sell his soul to the devil to preserve the fleet, and get the result, it would be him.

conspiracy theories around overthrowing Harold Wilson (as a supposed Soviet agent or sympathiser) and installing Mountbatten as Prime Minister.

Saw something about that recently, with a term of "government of national salvation" mentioned, no less, and that Mountbatten didn't express an interest to participate, all of which can be interpreted as one likes.

I suspect in such a case one could imagine Mountbatten holding the title of Lord High Admiral and consolidating a fair bit of power.

Absolutely. He had a lot of it IRL, but here he would have almost no constraints, and practically manage the armed forces from 1958 to 1979 as his personal project.

None of which is to say that the Provos wouldn't try to assassinate him. But they'd probably have a harder time of it. On the other hand, as they themselves pointed out, they only have to be lucky once.

Very, very right. Probably that would happen in some other place, but the result would be the same anyway. It's a kind of an event that even a change of timeline makes difficult to avoid.

If the UK heads in the direction of communism, there's a potentially amusing side-effect: the original IRA split in 1969 between the Catholic nationalist Provisionals, and the Marxist Official IRA - which was initially the larger faction. The way that interacts with a more left-wing, Soviet-aligned UK could get rather interesting.

Since ITTL the UK goes red circa 1958, I assume the IRA would feel very much betrayed as a whole, and go full nationalist for at least some time. Later the more left-wing elements would probably find a home with Mao, Tito or both. I am not sure how popular maoist theories were in Ireland IRL, but they do seem very fitting, especially in those circumstances.

The idea that they were designed as light aircraft carriers, and only described as cruisers to trick the Treasury, doesn't have much basis in fact and seems to be a retrospective justification for a happy accident.

Definitely appears to be the case, and with existing carrier fleet, they (i.e. their timeline implementation) would be considered and used more as cruisers.