The Ship Model Forum

So, most times the subjects of what-if's are those ships to have indeed survived long enough to be considered, or those which went under the waves.

But when WWII ended, the UK had four almost brand-new battleships in the form of the KGV class, plus the Vanguard. Were it not for the massive lack of funding, they could be preserved and who knows, might live to see the Falklands war.

What would you modernize and do to these ships? We know what the USA had available for the Iowas, but what would the UK have available to the KGV's?

Surviving into the 70's, the KGV's would probably receive 40mm bofors, Seawolf ship-to-air missiles perhaps where the pom-poms used to be, and there is plenty of space for Exocet launchers amidships. I would probably make a new hangar on the boat deck for Wasp or Lynx helicopters. Sensors could be the Type 1022/965P air surveillance and Type 996/992Q 3-D surveillance.

Anyone ever thought about tackling this what-if?

Marco

Hi Marco

Although not a KGV, a 1982 Vanguard had crossed my mind, similar lines would work for a KGV, basically remove existing light AA (40mm and smaller), Port & Stbd 2&3 (5.25")secondary turrets, tripod masts & dct's.

add lattice masts & appropriate radar suite (don't have references handy, but a double bedsted sort of thing), fit 4 6 cell seawolf launchers in place of 5.25" mounts, 4 excocet box launchers each side on after end of aft superstucture. hadn't worked in a helicopter hanger, but helipad on after end of the quarterdeck.

Post war the Royal Navy didn't seem to go in much for light AA guns, I did think, maybe 4 phalanx guns abeam of the fwd funnel & 2 abem of the after funnel

updated life raft stowage and new boats

The other thought was replacing the 5.25" with twin 4.5" (as fitted to county / leander class) or even the twin 3" as per Tiger class, although I don't know how practical that would be. (either all 8 mounts and putting sea wolf in some of the old pom pom mounts, or just 4 as above)

never got round to building it as I didn't fancy the outlay on a resin Vanguard as the doner, but a KGV, there is a thought.


Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

I have to admit, that's something of an interesting concept, though I never really looked into it all that far. 4.5" secondaries would give commonality with the fleet as it stands, giving her some form of SAM system would be another step forward, probably Exocets as well.

I had one thought a while back of a modernized version of the G3/N3 battleships, and I have to admit, part of it was probably rather outlandish, but I had the thought of a vertically-reloaded Bloodhound on the center turret mounting. I figured they would have the space, and the center turret has a rather limited field of fire, as a Long Ranged SAM position it might have just a little more merit.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Verical launch Bloodhound, now there is an idea to toy with. can't see being able to work that in on a KGV type design. with the sam capapbilty I was more concerned about point defence, rather that long range, leave that to the escort. At first i did think about Sea Dart on the 2 & 3 secondary mounts & sea wolf in palce of the pom poms, but felt that was too many systems, and looking at most large surface warships their defencive capabilities tend to be close range, relying on the escort for the long range stuff.

Question Sauragnmon, what sort of magazine capacity would you vertical launce bloudhound have?

I was playing with the idea of converting a half built airfix 1/600th HMS Tiger, that I lost interest in a couple yrs ago into a what if RN CG, now this gives me the idea of building her as her sister HMS Lion as the test bed for the VLS Bloodhound. remove the after turret, and a chunk of the existing after superstructure replace with boxier design, with some hatches on top and blast sheilds & some sort of fire control position / system.

Let me go & have a lie down before I get any more mad ideas.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

I wasn't actually thinking VLS Bloodhound, but instead a Vertically Reloaded launcher - much like the Sea Dart, but... well... Bigger. I wouldn't imagine there would be many rounds, but I'm not entirely sure - I never looked at the dimensional differences between the Sea Dart and the Bloodhound.

If they're in a similar range bracket, of coourse, it was similarly a concept that Kidcurrie and I bounced around of extending the legs of a Sea Dart - the Type 909 radar could actually lock a target out to approximately 100NM, however the Sea Dart could only engage out to 30, no matter the mark, because they never changed the range, only the guidance package. To similar end, he and I theorized the concept of taking a Sea Dart, and putting the Hercules booster from an early model Standard ER, to lengthen the legs of a Sea Dart missile - of course, on a Type 42 the magazine area would have to be heightened by approximately one deck so as to accomodate the newer, longer missile of doom.

Alternately, a thought I had was a Vertical Launch Sea Dart - giving it a decent booster motor would allow it a decent range even with vertical launch, ostensibly you'd add a few rounds over the use of the mechanized magazine and launcher accomodations, and would allow a wider engagement radius over the arm launcher in theory.

As I said, these are somewhat rough sketch ideas in my skull right now, do with them what you will.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Checking on dimensions, Bloodhound is considerably bigger than seadart, being 8.46m long, (seadart is 4.4m long) even asuming all the fins fold for storage, with the external boosters on the bloodhound making it I would thing around 1m (vs abt 0.4m for the seadart) in diameter it would make it a beast to hang from rails, especialy as it weighs over two tons as against abt 550kg for seadart & 1.3 tons for terrier.

Looking into it, the MkII seaslug was slightly heavier (albiet 2m shorter) & the county class destroyers carried 24 missiles so it should be possible to work something in.

From a practical point of view I think you would have to go for VLS, and for the 60's if you wanted the range the uk had nothing better. I still like the idea of building a test bed, looking at the timing maybe Lion is too "modern" for this as I would be looking at a surplus town or colony class, which on plastic kit front would mean using the airfix HMS Belfast, or backdating the Tiger to a colony.

still an intersting concept to give the Royal Navy long range SAM capabilty in the early 60's.

Or even going back to the original class for this thread & fitting the system somewhere in the after superstrucure, maybe leading to a Seaslug style launcher on No.3 5.25" mount position on a KGV, single launcher on each side. or VLs hatches in plase of both after 5.25" mounts.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

Hmmm, just looking at the Bloodhound she's almost hexagonal if you fold the wings against the ramjets... or if you fold them away you add the other two corners and give it a square cross section. I wonder what the dimension is from ramjet to ramjet. If you made it a three-stage for VLS, putting two SRB's on the open sides to give it the legs to clear the VLS and get into play, I think she'd be rather effective.

Ironically, to Bloodhound the KGV, you could go one step Back, though I don't know off hand what was put in the hangar, but use go back somewhat to the aircraft design (Irony that the Bloodhound replaced at least one Aircraft Squadron) and have the hangar for missile storage. Put the launchers on #3 turret, and then have them serviced from the hangar and down a set of rails to reload the launcher. She'd be a rather deep and intrusive VLS layout, you might have to build up the structure to accomodate those monsters, but it would certainly be worth it to give the Royal Navy the ability to Reach out and Touch something like that.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Probably very little. A KGV surviving into the 60s and 70s would probably have served as a flagship and as a coastal bombardment asset for amphibious forces. A couple of years ago I did some thinking for a model of a 1982 Howe - which I then didn't build mainly because I didn't find the kit I wanted at the time (Matchbox).

The following modifications were planned:

- removal of all light AA as well as the 5.25in turrets; that would probably have been done in the 1960s to cut into one of the major cost factors, manpower; even after that the ship would have been extremely costly to run; I had thought about removing B or Y turret as well for manpower reasons, but doing that sensibly would have been too costly

- adding four 40mm single AA guns, mainly for junk busting

- adding two quad Seacat launchers with suitable F/C, in place of the aft two 5.25in guns, not too expensive and in line with British naval thinking of the late 1960s/early 1970s; a third one might have been desirable, but too expensive

- adding a suitable communications suite for the ship to fulfil its flagship role; enough space should have been available

- I thought there was not sufficient space on the quarterdeck for a helipad, but for a light helo that may well work

If I were to push this beyond the Falklands I would replace Seacat with a CIWS system, probably Goalkeeper, and perhaps try to find space for four Tomahawk containers.

The main problem in thinking about modernized RN WW2 warships is money; during the late 1960s and 1970s the RN suffered several critical cutbacks, making thinking about large units costing vasts amount of money to operate rather tricky.

Jorit

_________________

Well, for me the issue has two sides: one is indeed that the RN lacked funding, so we wouldn't get much of a bang for our money.

But the other issue is that IF they could maitain the KGV's and the Vanguard in service, than we're talking about a whole new RN that would probably have the funding for that "extra something".

And here, removing one or two turrets... well, that would deprive the ship of its value. How many men were needed for each turret, does anyone know?

I would probably opt for removing B turret (although that's a crime against such a fine asymetry) on the grounds that displacement wouldn't change much, saving money on further alterations. But what would you put where B turret used to be? Could a platform be raised to place the Seacats or the Bofors guns?

Marco

Or else you're looking at a RN where they didn't have their stones extracted forcibly with a set of hedging shears at the hands of the government. The kind of Royal Navy where CVA-01 and other such projects can actually come to be. It's not always a holding to such levels of rigid realism in some respects that makes everything important.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

OUCH!!! Talk about capital punishment sheesh.

_________________
Drawing Board:
1/700 Whiff USS Leyte and escorts 1984
1/700 Whiff USN Modernized CAs 1984
1/700 Whiff ASW Showdown - FFs vs SSGN 1984

Slipway:
1/700 Whiff USN ASW Hunter Killer Group Dio 1984

To look at a "What if " Royal Navy that had retained & modernised Vanguard and at least 1 KGV, I would be looking at Navy that hadn't suffered a decimation in it's funding. Therefore the ships would have had a decent upgrade.

The more I think about this idea, the more I am looking at removing the 5.25" guns, and replaing positions 1&4 on each side with twin 4.5" mounts, and some sort of SAM systems on 2 & 3 positions, and that would depend on the timeline. if it were 1982 I think seawolf, earlier, I don't know seacat certainly, (possibly abeam of each funnel) maybe seaslug, but in that case I would have the 4.5" on 1 & 2 positions with seaslug launchers on No.4, with the reload hatches in place of No.3. This does of course bring to mind the daft posibility of Bloodhound, single launcher instead of twin because of the size of the missile.
(My other thought with Bloodhound is based on Sauragnmon's earlier post, using the hanger space, but moving the boats back onto the after superstructure & having the the launchers, one on either beam at the ends of the old catapult track. Double sneaky cos half the set up would utilise catapult parts fm POW)

I would loose the Tripods & the old DCT's new upper level to the bridge. latice masts, with radar systems appropriate to the period & fire control for the missile systems. Light AA I am not sure about, mid 60's I get the feeling that the doctrine was "nothing would get past missiles so why bother" for the RN it was the Falklands that proved that wrong, so maybe 4 or 6 single 40mm and similar 20mm max.

I am going to have to get my books out, this project has taken me. Maybe HMS Howe 1965 & HMS Anson 1982.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

Now, thinking in terms of a not-so-cash-starved RN, I would indeed suggest a more thorough upgrading, though again this would depend on the purpose of the ship.

As for missile armament:

- Seacat: definitely, as Seacat was thought to be the follow-on to the 40mm gun; two on either sides would fit with what was actually put on ships at the time

- Seaslug/Bloodhound: very unlikely; apart from the size issue both missiles would be the main armament for an area defence ship, and somehow I would rather see Howe in the flagship/amphibious warfare role

- Ikara or similar: equally unlikely

As for guns, again the main question is what should they be good for? I would suggest mainly AA, as bombardment would be the job of the 14in guns; therefore:

- 5.25: not suitable for AA purposes, have to go

- 4.5in twins: definitely possible, though perhaps slightly too heavy for AA only, and not needed for other purposes

- 3in twins: a possible alternative to the 4.5in guns, definitely better in the AA role and nice commonality with Tigers

- 40mm: perhaps four for junk bashing

As for Heli installations etc:

- short of removing the rear turret and replacing it with a hangar (as a kind of super-Tiger-mod) I see little possibility to sensibly integrate a helo (which means giving it enough space for maintenance etc) other than providing a small helipad on the stern

- what I have thought about is - given that the removal of all the light AA and the 5.25in guns makes a lot of room - it might be possible to add berthing for a, say, 500 strong Marine force

- of course, then there is the super-Tiger option mentioned above - landing the rear turret, adding a hangar and a large landing deck, though that may look exceedingly ugly

As for superstructure:

- funnels should get caps as in Tiger (even in my lowest-cost proposal above)

- bridge should be fully enclosed (ABC proof) as in Tiger or Belfast (even in my lowest-cost proposal above)

- instead of lattice mast perhaps a fully enclosed one, as in Tiger mod (in my lowest-cost proposal above, I would have left the tripods in place, mainly because I like the look of them...)

As for sensors:

- as I rather see the ship more as a command platform than anything else I would look for CLC-1 Northampton for inspiration; as it will never operate without area defence ships, a sophisticated search radar is possibly less important than direct communication with Whitehall/Northwood as well as comm links to the USN

Jorit

_________________

It's rather true, if you're looking at retaining One KGV, if not More, obviously the RN is Not cash strapped courtesy of the Government and somewhat delusional/codependant thinking.

Sea Cat - goes somewhat without saying, it'd likely be fitted in the 60's and held on in general until replaced with Sea Wolf.

Sea Slug/Bloodhound - JWintes, you say Area Defence or Command as if it's one or the other, you're looking at a ship far larger than a Cruiser, and in places you have space to accommodate more than One mission suite - the Battleships were already designed as Flagships, but to give them some section of Area Control as well only further increases their capacity as a capital ship. If we remove B-Turret, we could accommodate the barbette into the structure, and use that as a flag expansion space, and for additional generating power in the old magazine. In theory we could have the cake and eat it too with the hangar and the boat deck, if the boats are raised and the reload track is run out of a hatch to the broadside launchers. Just a thought.

Ikara - I'm not entirely sure where you'd put it, if you could. The pit nature would suggest a barbette from one of the 5.25 turrets, but that'd limit its field of fire, it's a bit of a can of worms on what you do with it.

Secondary Guns - I'm against giving it a pure AA secondary battery, and suggest 4.5" twins for the fact they can do ASuW as well, unless we're talking about firing on small threats with the 14" guns now?

Main Guns - possibly an upgrade/refit, maybe the Crown gives the talented Mr Bull a job when CARDE starts coming to an end.

Masts - Lattice is one thought, possibly equally a MACK might help on two fronts to reduce structural clutter and to refine the stack exhaust. That might also help with some of the clutter on the aft structure, could maybe accommodate a helipad on the structure, maybe a stepped-up platform that extends back over the 14" turret to accommodate the space for landing.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

For no other reason than sheer delusion, I'm a firm believer in the idea that IF a ship has quadruple turrets, no power on Earth should be allowed to removed them, not even if it would save the world: we're talking about quadruple turrets, for heavens' sake, so screw the world!

Anyway, what about giving the KGV a single funnel and placing the helipad and hangar on the aft superstructure?

Marco

I am thinking if you are going to keep a battleship, you are going to keep all it's main armament, unless you are going to replace it with something more powerfull, also logically to make sense of converting/upgrading an existing hull, it should be cheaper than a complete new build.

I have thought about working a helicopter / Hanger in, but without a large amount of reconstruction I cannot see how, and also apart from being the "admiral's barge" what would it's purpose be? one or two additional ASW or SAR assets, I am not sure it is a viable use of space or refit cost.

talking mid 60's time period, Seaslug I don't think is a viable use of space either, as it wouldn't increase the defensive area of the group, assuming that county class destroyers would form part of the escort. Bloodhound however, big missile, too big for any other existing hull, but about 4 times the range of seaslug, probably in the real world highly impractical, but in the what if world that would be my reason for fitting it. seacat would go without saying, and also getting rid of the 5.25" and replacing at least some of them with twin 4.5"s. In this time period I would also go for lattice masts, purely as the were what was fitted to the larger RN warships of the period. single funnel, maybe midships, with the boat stowage built up around asthetically sounds an interesting idea, but I think I am going to stick with the original layout.

Falklands Timescale I may replace the masts, as a late 70's refit would have upgraded the radar / sensor / coms suite. Seawolf would replace seacat and Bloodhound I think would go, as seadart would have made it obsolete. The above argument dictates seadart should not repalce Bloodhound, but, there is all the unused space left by removing bloodhound & it's fire control system, so a twin launcer on each beam may be a goer on those grounds, on the other hand exocet launchers could go there.

I am going to try and put some drawings together on the basis of those two layouts, new bridge & maybe funnel caps, and see where it goes. Also the scratchbuild a 1/700th Bloodhound, to see if I can make it fit. I was thinking of in place of 3&4 5.25" mounts, but I will see how it comes out. Might post if they are any good.

Si

_________________
Simon Heathwood

A few thoughts:

Helipad - compliment of Royal Marines, for Special Operations? It depends on where you build it though, and you could also use it for landing a chopper with extra munitions during UNREP.

Bloodhound - Falklands timescale you say Sea Dart would have replaced it, I argue that heavily, because as I pointed out - Sea Dart's Got no Legs to it. Bloodhound can reach out to 100 miles and hit the target, but while the Type 909 can illuminate that far, Sea Dart can only go out to 30NM. Perhaps as a medium range missile, or the closer engagements, but not to replace the Bloodhound. In this instance, a Bloodhound Mk2 might have been introduced, which like the many modifications of Sea Dart, upgrade the guidance package. Probably an active-radar Terminal stage so the missile can be Bulldogged would be added, but I would imagine the Bloodhound would stay well put.

_________________
Die Panzerschiffe - Putting the Heavy in Heavy Cruiser since 1940.

It's not Overkill, it's Insurance.

If you think my plastic is crazy, check out my Line Art!
http://s37.photobucket.com/albums/e58/S ... %20Images/

Bloodhound missiles navalized to be placed aboard no more than a dozen ships would probably cause the rocketing of maintenance costs by 1982 if not sooner, but I still would like to see if it could be played out.

Marco

As for the Seaslugs, remember that it was stowed horizontally - that would make major reconstruction necessary. I'm not sure about the Bloodhounds, but seriously doubt that even with vertical stowage you could fit a magazine in the place of the 5.25in magazines. These missiles were huge.

An alternative may be a Boston-type reconstruction - remove Y turret, replace it with one or two launchers and a large magazine complex beneath them. Or a British version of Talos

Jorit

_________________

Y turret removal is a good concept. It has a lot more space for the bloodhound and is heavily protected which is always good when you're storing long range missiles with plenty of fuel around, no?

Marco