European NATO naval alternatives : 1950 - 1990

[PMN1]

You not only get a much better helicopter carrier but save a huge amount on the cost of the conversions, and Britain just happens to have a number of Colossus class ships waiting for disposal at the time + the Majestic class Leviathan that was never completed and ended up being striped for parts.

(Glory, Ocean, Theseus and Triumph are all available at the time the Tigers were earmarked for conversion)

Only have one Sea Slug system and use the other half of the ship for helicopters, either using the exisiting hanger or possible a new one with doors so as to avoid relying on one lift.

One issue i've seen noted with any conversions of the Colossus or Majestics etc was the lower speed.

 

[steamboy]

Eeeep! WEhy would you convert them into that, its a waste of money and a waste of a perfectly good carrier hull. The tiger's should never have been built, just build more counties, or if you want a missile carrier, build a 'double ended' county, replacing the forward pair of 4.5-inch mounts with another Sea slug.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Perhaps some more big SSKs like the Harushio, Kilos, or Collins.

Every single time a tender goes out for a new ocean going SSK France, Sweden, and Germany show up with ~2,000 ton designs that can totally be cheaply and easily be scaled up by over 50% to meet the tender specifications.

 

[AHFan]

In my opinion, the first step will involve the decision to Integrate the military forces of different nations such as UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc to get economies of scale. I am imagining European NATO countries developing a nuclear deterrent and conventional forces independent of the US.

The development of a nuclear submarine with SLBM, ICBM and tactical nuke missiles would probably create a strong deterrent. Developing best in class logistics would be the next step. Then developing the ground and air forces. Given the engineering capabilities of the European NATO nations, I have no doubt they could equip, train and maintain a formidable force.

The key step is obtaining political support for joint development. My guess is that this will be the hardest task.

 

[sparky42]

Perhaps some more big SSKs like the Harushio, Kilos, or Collins.

Every single time a tender goes out for a new ocean going SSK France, Sweden, and Germany show up with ~2,000 ton designs that can totally be cheaply and easily be scaled up by over 50% to meet the tender specifications.

The issue there surely is that for at least Germany and Sweden in this time period the main operational area is the Baltic which will influence the size of the subs they want?

 

[sparky42]

In my opinion, the first step will involve the decision to Integrate the military forces of different nations such as UK, France, Italy, Germany, etc to get economies of scale. I am imagining European NATO countries developing a nuclear deterrent and conventional forces independent of the US.

The development of a nuclear submarine with SLBM, ICBM and tactical nuke missiles would probably create a strong deterrent. Developing best in class logistics would be the next step. Then developing the ground and air forces. Given the engineering capabilities of the European NATO nations, I have no doubt they could equip, train and maintain a formidable force.

The key step is obtaining political support for joint development. My guess is that this will be the hardest task.

That might be an understatement, to put it mildly.

 

[jsb]

or if you want a missile carrier, build a 'double ended' county, replacing the forward pair of 4.5-inch mounts with another Sea slug.

Does a 'double ended' work, as the existing Sea slug ran the full length of most of the ship already?

Perhaps some more big SSKs like the Harushio, Kilos, or Collins.

Every single time a tender goes out for a new ocean going SSK France, Sweden, and Germany show up with ~2,000 ton designs that can totally be cheaply and easily be scaled up by over 50% to meet the tender specifications.

Is some of the modern size not driven by massive sound dampening, computer system as much by endurance requirements?

Would SSNs for more people in the Cold War not be just as fun, say Canada and Australia (ok not euro NATO navies...), maybe the most realistic as they might actually be trusted with USN/RN types? They might regard them as the logical descendants of the interwar CAs and have the areas to use them?

 

[sparky42]

Does a 'double ended' work, as the existing Sea slug ran the full length of most of the ship already?

Is some of the modern size not driven by massive sound dampening, computer system as much by endurance requirements?

Would SSNs for more people in the Cold War not be just as fun, say Canada and Australia (ok not euro NATO navies...), maybe the most realistic as they might actually be trusted with USN/RN types? They might regard them as the logical descendants of the interwar CAs and have the areas to use them?

Hell Sweden looked at a SSN design, http://www.hisutton.com/Swedish_SSN.html and I think the Dutch considered it as well for a period.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The issue there surely is that for at least Germany and Sweden in this time period the main operational area is the Baltic which will influence the size of the subs they want?

For Germany and Sweden absolutely, France and the UK though... Even if just for the export market you'd think they'd have something.

Would SSNs for more people in the Cold War not be just as fun, say Canada and Australia (ok not euro NATO navies...), maybe the most realistic as they might actually be trusted with USN/RN types?

Interestingly the US expressly forbid the UK from selling Canada nuclear submarines.

The facts that the UK needs permission to sell nuclear submarines, and stopped producing conventional ones basically killed the UK's submarine export business. Which is a shame given how successful the O-boats had been on the export market.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Eeeep! WEhy would you convert them into that, its a waste of money and a waste of a perfectly good carrier hull. The tiger's should never have been built, just build more counties, or if you want a missile carrier, build a 'double ended' county, replacing the forward pair of 4.5-inch mounts with another Sea slug.

I wouldn't convert them into that, but rather leave Ocean and Theseus mostly as they were after Suez with a single squadron of Wessex on board and the command staff to fill the Anti Submarine escort for the CVA's role the Tigers were intended for. Just bring the communications gear up to modern (for the early 60's) standard. If you can fit some sort of AA missile all well and good, but not at the cost of the ships main function of Helicopter carrier.

 

[sparky42]

For Germany and Sweden absolutely, France and the UK though... Even if just for the export market you'd think they'd have something.


Interestingly the US expressly forbid the UK from selling Canada nuclear submarines.

The facts that the UK needs permission to sell nuclear submarines, and stopped producing conventional ones basically killed the UK's submarine export business. Which is a shame given how successful the O-boats had been on the export market.

Well given the issues the Upholder class had I’m not sure they would have had huge success unless there was a second batch of them.

 

[gatordad699]

IMHO/Experience I would say lots and lots of inexpensive Corvette/Frigate/DD/DDG. Something like OHP (One Arm Bandit held around 40 weapons and could fire an ASROC), Spruance (But with much better AAA. Maybe like a Kidd but only 1 launcher). The more hulls and helicopters you have looking for submarines, the better. Helicopters are the only non-submarine weapon that a boat fears. They’re faster than the SS/SSN/SSGN, and you really can’t see them coming. They should all have a towed array as well. An affordable helicopter carrier would be great. 4-6 CIWS down each side. Sea Sparrow (or some type of point defense missile system). I always thought that NATO ships (really looking at you USN) were woefully under equipped when it came to modern AAA.

IMHO many countries didn’t go the nuclear boat route because of the lifetime expense. Everything to do with nuclear power is just so expensive. Just training and keeping operators has been a nightmare for the USN for decades (Current enlistment bonus is $75,000, with the ability to make up to $360,000 if they reenlist 3 times). That’s not the designing, building, repairing, operating, refueling, or overhauling cost.

Putting nuclear armed cruise missiles on subs was a very bad idea. Bush actually removed them all. Neither side wants to have mini SSBNs all over the world.

IMHO think that NATO was way late to the SSGN party. Should have had those way before they did. VLS 688 was/is nice, but more is always better. Maybe they could have added a short section to a 637 or 688 for this. (Of course they would have needed the ASMs to arm them with. Something IMHO the USN is way behind on due to the Carrier Mafia running the USN. Or institutionalized stupidity.)

Most of the above is due to my belief that there are only two types of ships, submarines and targets.

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Does a 'double ended' work, as the existing Sea slug ran the full length of most of the ship already?

Correct, that's why the "Counties" were quickly retired and replaced by the 42's despite having a few more years left in them as the magazine was thought to be a danger via ASM's especially the beam riding types.

Ref: Modern Royal Navy by Paul Beaver.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Probably ASB as it's not a French aircraft but in 1970 France orders 16 Harrier GR1's and 4 two seat trainers to allow Arromanches (Colossus)to carry a flight of 8 Harriers. This then prompts the RN to retain Albion, Bulwark and Hermes as Harrier carriers abandon the "It's a Through Deck Cruiser and totally not an aircraft carrier" rubbish and leads to the early development of the Sea Harrier.

 

[jsb]

IMHO think that NATO was way late to the SSGN party. Should have had those way before they did. VLS 688 was/is nice, but more is always better. Maybe they could have added a short section to a 637 or 688 for this. (Of course they would have needed the ASMs to arm them with. Something IMHO the USN is way behind on due to the Carrier Mafia running the USN. Or institutionalized stupidity.)

How much more or less would it have cost to carry the 32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk on SSGNs (say make the flight II 688s but with 32 tubes, or just make all the 688 flight II from the start?) and not on the reactivated Iowas in 1980-90s?

 

[Giant Man Eating Rabbits]

Probably ASB as it's not a French aircraft but in 1970 France orders 16 Harrier GR1's and 4 two seat trainers to allow Arromanches (Colossus)to carry a flight of 8 Harriers. This then prompts the RN to retain Albion, Bulwark and Hermes as Harrier carriers abandon the "It's a Through Deck Cruiser and totally not an aircraft carrier" rubbish and leads to the early development of the Sea Harrier.

What would the finances be like for this?

Would there be enough for SeaKing AEW's to be purchased as well?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

(1) What would the finances be like for this?

(2) Would there be enough for SeaKing AEW's to be purchased as well?

(1) They already have the ships and the helicopters, they just need the Harriers. The three Centaurs still potentially have a lot of life in them and they have the Centaur herself as a parts hulk so if the wills there it should be affordable given you won't need replacements for 20 years or so. The only real question mark is can they man them.

(2) It wasn't money that stopped the Seaking AEW but politics. AEW was something that went with aircraft carriers and the politicians said the RN would have no more carriers. The RN had the spare helicopters, it had the spare radar sets, it had the plans already drawn up but they weren't allowed to build the things because they didn't have carriers and so didn't need them. Until the Sheffield was lost in the Falklands war and then they had enough to equip the new Illustrious (which they finally admitted was a carrier and not a cruiser) put together in a couple of weeks

 

[Moriarty]

I always thought that a non-Naval version of the Lockheed S-3 Viking would make an interesting export aircraft from the US to Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands to deal with Russian deployments of submarines, frigates, destroyers, and other surface ships in the Baltic and the North Sea. With Nimrods, Orions, and other craft to help guide the Vikings it could make an interesting threat to the Russian navy.

 

[gatordad699]

How much more or less would it have cost to carry the 32 × BGM-109 Tomahawk on SSGNs (say make the flight II 688s but with 32 tubes, or just make all the 688 flight II from the start?) and not on the reactivated Iowas in 1980-90s?

They put the VLS in the forward ballast tanks. Could have put some in the aft ballast tanks. That would probably get you at least 12 more.

They made a “stretch” 637. Maybe they could have added a small section to a 688. Just aft of Crews Mess and forward of the reactor compartment. Don’t think you would have needed that much length. Maybe could have added more food storage (everyone I know ran out of food at least once on a 688). Or more racks. (I hot racked my first 2 years on my first boat. It sucks.) This all could have fit under the VLS tubes.

 

[Blue cat]

For Germany and Sweden absolutely, France and the UK though... Even if just for the export market you'd think they'd have something.


Interestingly the US expressly forbid the UK from selling Canada nuclear submarines.

The facts that the UK needs permission to sell nuclear submarines, and stopped producing conventional ones basically killed the UK's submarine export business. Which is a shame given how successful the O-boats had been on the export market.

With the benefit of hindsight Canada probably should have negotiated (or perhaps made more efforts to negotiate) “access“ to more nuclear technology back in the 1940’s, 1950’s and possibly early 1960’s. Canada perhaps had a bit more leverage prior to the mid 1960’s or 1970’s at the latest.