- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| My Alternate Jet Age Timeline | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Oct 31 2013, 03:24 AM (1,468 Views) | |
| Delta Force | Oct 31 2013, 03:24 AM Post #1 |
|
I've been working on an alternate history Jet Age timeline for a while now on another website which may be of interest to those on this site. The storyline is essentially a Jetpunk/Atomicpunk world of tomorrow as envisioned in the 1950s and 1960s, but not in an over the top manner as in Fallout . Computing technology is over a decade behind our own timeline, with high speed aircraft and nuclear technologies making up for it. Here are the links to it: The Need for Speed: A Jet Age Timeline The Need for Speed Timeline Events Edited by Delta Force, Oct 31 2013, 03:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Nov 13 2013, 05:41 AM Post #2 |
|
I have updated the timeline with the Suez and Sinai Treaty that ends the Suez War. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Nov 14 2013, 02:32 AM Post #3 |
|
The timeline has now been updated with information on the United States Army and United States Air Force nuclear power programs. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Nov 19 2013, 09:37 AM Post #4 |
|
The new update highlights the aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines of the Royal Canadian navy in the 1960s. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Nov 23 2013, 08:43 AM Post #5 |
|
The new Soviet triumvirate and second October Revolution is the subject of today's update. Feel free to leave comments on the timeline either here or there. My timeline isn't the only interesting thing on that site. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Nov 23 2013, 01:34 PM Post #6 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
When are the Canadian SSNs scheduled to enter service? I can't see a Communist Saudi Arabia coming to pass. If it wasn't in the interests of the USA and Britain to prop up the Saudi state as in @, then it is a simple matter of installing a puppet regime that does coincide with their interests. Saudi Arabia lacks the military hardware and money at this time to do anything. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Nov 24 2013, 12:34 AM Post #7 |
|
The Canadian SSNs will enter service in the mid to late-1960s. As for Saudi Arabia, it certainly isn't impossible. Iran was a major intelligence failure for the United States (as was the situation in China in the 1940s and Vietnam in the 1960s) in our own timeline. Failure to intervene isn't out of the question either. The Iranian Revolution toppled a critically important American ally in the Middle East, which at the time was easily the third largest petroleum producing nation (likely second largest exporter) and a major customer of American military and industrial goods. With the more centrist factions of Arab nationalism discredited by the Suez War in my timeline, the more communist factions are far more prominent. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Nov 24 2013, 01:44 AM Post #8 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
The environment in the 1970s was a good bit different than the 50s, especially in the willingness to intervene overseas and the leadership in Washington. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Nov 24 2013, 02:10 AM Post #9 |
|
The revolution isn't until the 1980s, I'm just mentioning things to come in that post (as I have done with the Second Korean War of the mid-1960s). |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Nov 24 2013, 03:47 AM Post #10 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Saudi Arabia doesn't have the population base, industry or background to go Red. It is also a bridge too far for the USA and her allies. There isn't much that could stop them intervening, as plans existed historically. An Arab nationalist revolt is maybe, maybe possible in the 1960s, but that would still get short shrift in the manner of intervention in Lebanon and Jordan; Saudi Arabia, despite it's physical size, is on a par with those two states in terms of its actual size at the point discussed. The mid 1960s is stretching too far for Canada without dramatic changes to funding and strategy. The use of SSNs in the Arctic as was proposed in the late 1980s was not something that was considered as pressing in the 1960s. It would take until the early-mid 1970s for Canada to build, trial and field the first SSNs; going for 6 with a first class is also expensive and a gamble. Better to go for 1-2 experimental ones, followed by an order for a repeat class of 4 several years later. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Nov 24 2013, 04:34 AM Post #11 |
|
I admit it is unlikely, and I have considered retconning it. I was trying to avoid the Iran/Iraq cliche at the time, as one of those countries always becomes the anti-Western bad guy of the Middle East in the 1980s. The research I did for the timeline also indicates that the Canadians considered purchasing SSNs in both 1959 and 1962, instead of/along with the Barbel/Oberon class order. Purchasing Avro Arrows saves them a bit of money compared to the Voodoos they ended up acquiring in real life, and being on the frontlines for a longer period of the Cold War means Canada doesn't go through a reduction in military spending during the mid-1960s. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Nov 24 2013, 11:59 AM Post #12 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Development of the Arrows over time will probably cost a bit more. It is definitely possible for Canada to consider going for SSNs, but the overall time cycle will be longer. I also can't see Canada having a bigger SSN fleet than the RN with a later PoD. Something like this could work: - Initial consideration of purchase in 1959 - Defence feasability study 1960/61 - Inquiries made to the USA and UK in 1961. If we go with the British line, then there won't be any further developments until HMS Dreadnought is in operational service in 63/64. Ideally, going for a modified Valiant class boat will mean - Requirement issued in 1965 - First hull laid down in late 1967 and commissioned into service in 1970 |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Nov 26 2013, 02:20 AM Post #13 |
|
Today's update is on the early Commonwealth space program, including the Black Prince.
Edited by Delta Force, Nov 26 2013, 02:20 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 19 2013, 05:15 AM Post #14 |
|
Today's update is on the United States Army's STAR Cannon system. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 20 2013, 06:44 AM Post #15 |
|
Today's update is on Juan and Eva PerĂ³n in Argentina. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 20 2013, 09:58 AM Post #16 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
There was a reference in the HARP update to Iowa class guided missile battleships. Which conversion were you thinking of? |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 20 2013, 05:30 PM Post #17 |
|
One of the single-end Talos conversions, intended as an escort for the conventional supercarriers. This is for two reasons. The first is that an Iowa class conversion is a lot less than a new Long Beach cruiser, and it saves the limited production of those ships for the nuclear powered supercarriers. The second reason is that naval gunfire has continued to prove its utility throughout the 1950s. In addition to providing gunfire support in World War II and Korea, naval gunfire played a critical role in the Suez Crisis after a sandstorm grounded naval aviation assets. I am actually thinking of having the Alaska class become the Boston class of this timeline. Most of the costs of a missile conversion go into the radars and missiles, and the Alaska class ships were always misfits. They converted a lot of old heavy cruisers over to guided missile ships, but they had two lightly used Alaska class ships to work with the whole time. It was cheaper to convert old aircraft carriers into command and intelligence ships, so keeping them in a cruiser role makes a lot more sense. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 20 2013, 07:18 PM Post #18 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The Alaskas are poorly designed and too big for the purpose discussed. Converting CAs to CAGs and CGs made sense as they were smaller, cheaper and could provide more hulls. For conventional powered carriers, the large number of conventional DLGs built in the 1950s will suffice, along with CG conversions. There aren't enough battleships to go around and their guns give them a slightly different role. It will be cheaper to convert more CAs and CLs to either single end or double end missile cruisers, perhaps with the CLs taking Terrier and the CAs taking Talos. If the justification for battleships lies in naval gunfire, then put them with amphibious groups as command/flagships and fleet gunfire assets. That would justify their defensive missiles and their atomic gunfire capacity. Give Kentucky and perhaps even Illinois the double end conversion and they can serve as fleet flagships with the 2nd and 6th Fleet. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 20 2013, 07:59 PM Post #19 |
|
In other words, assign the battleships to the USN's amphibious ready groups, as opposed to the carrier battle groups? That makes more sense, as otherwise they would be giant guided missile cruisers with guns, instead of battleships with a strong air defense capability. I'm not sure if the amphibious ready group concept was being worked on in the late 1950s, but I'm already changing US military doctrine in a few ways anyways (the US Army gets VTOL ground support aircraft after the Second Korean War), so that is relatively minor. That said, do you know if the battleships actually worked with any larger naval units during the Korean and Vietnam wars? It seems they just did their own thing most of the time, working with whatever assets happened to be in the area while they bombarded shore targets or supported amphibious operations. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 20 2013, 08:16 PM Post #20 |
|
Also, I just put up the ultimate challenge on Alternate History - finding a role for the Alaska class. That might be interesting. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 21 2013, 04:53 AM Post #21 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Yes, give them a dedicated amphibious role in wartime, with the peacetime role of flagship/showing the flag. The carrier groups will be operating in a manner whereby the one unique asset that the BB brings (heavy guns) will be unnecessary. In Korea, the single Iowa class vessel deployed there at any one time operated as a fire support vessel, not an integral part of any carrier task force. Off Vietnam, the role of the New Jersey was even more narrowly defined and it did not operate with any carriers. A role for the Alaskas? Post WW2, command ship conversions. They were actually the ideal ship for the 1980s Tomahawk conversion, with the Iowas being a bit too big and expensive and the Des Moines class not big enough. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 23 2013, 06:29 AM Post #22 |
|
Here is a list of all the major ahistorical systems detailed or mentioned in the timeline so far. The F-4 does not exist in this timeline as a naval aircraft, with the Vought F8U-3 Crusader III being selected for service instead of the F-4 due to its higher speed. In this timeline, the speed is thought necessary as the Soviet Myasishchev M-50 is mistaken as a prototype nuclear powered bomber capable of sustained high speed flight. The Super Demon interests the USAF enough that it is ordered as a self-escorting compliment to the F-105 Thunderchief. Argentina -- FMA IAe 33 Pulqui II -- FMA IAe 43 Pulqui III (Mach 2 version of our timeline's Hindustan HF-24 Marut, powered by Atar engines) Canada -- Avro Canada Arrow Mark II (Mach 2.5 interceptor) -- Avro Canada Arrow Mark III (multirole tactical nuclear attack variant) -- Avro Canada Arrow Mark IV (Mach 3 interceptor) ---- Skystreak missile (similar to AIM-47) -- Inuit class submarine (upgraded Valiant class) Commonwealth Programs -- Black Prince rocket system ---- de Havilland Propellers and Hawker Siddeley Blue Streak ---- Black Arrow/Arrowhead system (capable of launches independent of Blue Streak) ------ Saunders-Roe Black Arrow ------ Avro Canada Arrowhead Soviet Union -- Myasishchev M-50 United Kingdom -- BAC TSR-2 -- Folland Sea Mosquito II (navalized multirole Folland Gnat development powered by a single Bristol BS.75 turbofan) -- Folland Mosquito II (multirole Folland Gnat development powered by a single Bristol BS.75 turbofan) -- Folland Fly (trainer variant of the Folland Mosquito II) United States -- XB-72 (prototype nuclear powered bomber) -- Convair B-58B ---- AGM-48 Skybolt ---- High Virgo (ASAT) -- North American F-108 Rapier ---- AIM-47 Falcon ---- AGM-76 Falcon -- Talos equipped Texas Towers -- Vought F8U-3 Crusader III -- F-110A Spectre (single seat Super Demon for tactical nuclear attacks) -- F-110B Spectre (two seat Super Demon multirole) -- Army Nuclear Power Program reactors (more succesful than our timeline, used to power Arctic airbases) -- USAF Nuclear Power Program reactors (ahistorical, modular nuclear reactors transportable by airlifters) -- Iowa class Talos conversion -- M100 Space Cannon (Gerald Bull HARP cannon) -- STAR Shell (Marlet 4) Edited by Delta Force, Jan 29 2014, 06:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 23 2013, 01:31 PM Post #23 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Getting an atomic powered aircraft as a viable development will be very interesting and costly. The F-4 would be in service as a naval fighter-bomber, with the Crusader taking on the interceptor role. The drivers for a long range fleet air superiority fighter would still be there. The Folland Gnat doesn't fill a role for the RAF or RN outside of a basic trainer. The RAF needs an air superiority fighter to replace the Lightning and an eventual fighter-bomber replacement for the Hunter. The former can be catered for with a high/lo mix of Avro Arrows and evolved Fairey Delta 2s - they could be very big sellers to historical users of Mirage IIIs. The fighter-bomber role is well catered for by the P.1154 or the P.1127. The latter is easier to get into service. A strike fighter to complement the TSR-2 can emerge out of the AFVG designs; this would also do sterling service as a naval fighter. The TSR-2 replaces Canberra and the V-Bombers in the theatre strike bomber role; the strategic role for the Vulcan can be stretched out longer with some of the interesting Blue Steel follow on projects, as well as various proposed Vulcan variants. Having a legacy force of a few dozen 'heavy' bombers could be very handy for the RAF if they can survive the doctrinal uncertainty of the 1960s. Navally, the RN needs an air superiority/strike fighter, with the Buccaneer being the ideal attack bomber and the Harrier a useful fighter-bomber. A 60,000t carrier (a modified earlier CVA-01 type) that can deploy 24 fighters, 18 Buccaneers, 18 Harriers, 4 AEW and 4 GP/ASW aircraft or Rotodynes would be ideal. To afford such a class of ships, the refit of Victorious would need to be cancelled, along with Eagle's late 60s refit. Hermes could be sold to Australia and Centaur to Canada in the late 1960s. The absolute ideal would be 4 ships built over a lengthy period, being laid down in 1957, 1961, 1965 and 1969. Sustained defence spending and avoiding wasteful cancellations could do the trick. Each carrier group would theoretically have a group of a Type 82 DLG, 2 County class DLGs and 3 Type 42 DDGs, plus frigates. The DLGs can carry the twin 6" mount, with the Type 82s being double ended Sea Dart ships; destroyers would have one or two single 4.5". Carrier names could be Illustrious, Victorious, Ark Royal and Eagle - keeping names with long records in service. Keeping Vanguard around as a training ship/static flagship at Portsmouth would preserve her for later museum ship service or modernization. Tiger, Lion, Swiftsure and Superb would be completed/modified as gun cruisers and kept in reserve in a rolling fashion, with 1 ship in the Middle East or Far East, 1 ship gradually working up and 2 ships in reserve. Putting together the British Army in a post-Suez situation could be interesting and I could give some thoughts of how things would turn out there. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 25 2013, 01:09 AM Post #24 |
|
Unfortunately I can't do anything but basic formatting on my phone. There are going to be several prominent nations in the timeline. The superpowers and great powers of the timeline are going to be the United States, Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, United Kingdom, and France. Within NATO, Canada, West Germany, and Italy are major providers of equipment and forces (Turkey simply has a large military). Outside NATO, but still aligned with the West through SEATO, CENTO, and other arrangements are Australia, Japan, the Republic of China, RoK, Pakistan, Israel, and Imperial Iran (all mostly customers for equipment and services, at least early on). Major neutral powers include India, Argentina, Sweden, and Switzerland (all make some or all of their equipment). Essentially, that's mostly historical. Where it gets ahistorical is that Cuba is pro-Western, as well as many Middle Eastern states that became Soviet aligned in our timeline. Communism has taken hold in Indonesia and many Asian nations, though. I'm thinking Vietnam goes fully communist as well, but I am not sure how unlikely that war was. It was the only insurgency America intervened so heavily in (the Korean War was a conventional war). |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 25 2013, 03:18 AM Post #25 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
A Communist Indonesia would create the need for an ongoing British presence at Singapore and also majorly change Australia's foreign and defence policies; we would very likely go nuclear. Let me know if you'd like any help or recommendations on the British and Australian fronts. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Dec 25 2013, 03:30 AM Post #26 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
That sounds very interesting! |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 25 2013, 06:07 AM Post #27 |
|
Apparently Australia approached the United Kingdom in the 1950s regarding the purchase of British nuclear weapons. The British became somewhat worried that it might derail the 1958 Mutual Defense Agreement, and Prime Minister Menzies preferred to let the Americans and British manage nuclear weapons issues. Still, at one point the Australians were set to receive Valiant bombers, a nuclear reactor in the Snowy Mountains, and the nuclear bombs themselves. The implications such an arrangement would have on nuclear proliferation are interesting. I don't think too many communist states and their allies would be candidates, but it might give impetus to something like the NATO Multilateral Force and expand proliferation to other states. Sweden and Switzerland are likely candidates for purchasing or developing nuclear forces. I think South America stands a good chance of remaining nuclear weapons free, and something might be worked out between the Middle Eastern states (Imperial Iran might hold off to avoid sparking an arms race). Between communist Indonesia and the Second Korean War, there might also be some large butterflies for the Republic of China, Philippines, and Japan. The RoK might find itself dealing with a major insurgency and continuing problems in the North, even without direct PRC intervention. Japan might modify or repeal Article 9 it struck during the Second Korean War, especially if the postwar settlement leaves Korea unstable and Japan is in danger of being encircled by communist states. Basically, lots of butterflies. I should be able to handle the United States, Soviet Union, and middle powers, but I'm certainly going to seek additional viewpoints for the PRC, United Kingdom, and France. They are following paths rarely (if ever) explored in alternate history from the Suez War onwards. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 25 2013, 11:13 AM Post #28 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Sweden and Switzerland had their own atomic weapons programmes. I have a fair bit on the Australian atomic issue, including a few interesting monographs. Approaching Britain for Red Beards was only the beginning and part of the raison d'etre of the F-111 purchase was to have the capacity to nuke Jakarta, as well as deterring Red China and Japan. MLF was dead in the water to begin with in @ and in a situation with Britain and France still going relatively strong, will be even more deceased. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Dec 26 2013, 11:48 AM Post #29 |
|
Well, the XB-72 is just viable enough for the USAF to have second thoughts about it. That said, the research that goes into the prototype does greatly advance nuclear and materials science relative to our timeline.
The F-4 went against the Crusader III for an interceptor contract, not a strike fighter contract. The USN realized the Phantom could intercept and carry a large payload, as well as doubts about the viability of interceptors with only a single crew member. Vought did make a mockup showing how the cockpit would be laid out in production models, and observers generally agreed it solved the issues. I was thinking that the A-5 Vigilante might be developed into the USN's main heavy aircraft. With proper redesign (it had a very strange compartment for extra fuel, nuclear bombs, and buddy packs that caused at least three accidents) it could be a useful strike fighter or heavy interceptor. It is derived from the F-108 Rapier, so I imagine it would be suitable for an interim solution until something similar to our timeline F-111B/F-14/navalized F-15 is developed.
Folland had some rather ambitious proposals for Gnat development.
British built Arrows are the RAF's solution in this timeline.
The Kestral and its developments will play a major role in the timeline. I was actually thinking of them being adopted by the United States Army in the late 1960s/early 1970s to provide integral air support. The Army never gave up the right to use VTOL aircraft, even as it lost the right to all other fixed wing aircraft. Not sure why a VTOL aircraft would be used as a strike fighter though, unless you meant as a CAS aircraft.
I will have to look into what the proposals were in the mid-1960s. The Mirage G and Panavia Tornado are a lot easier to find information on, but it looks like the Anglo-French project was intended to be a fast F-105 type nuclear strike fighter.
With Skybolt in service, they might want to use that instead of Blue Steel. Unless the development projects are for Blue Steel, not the Vulcan. Ironically, the only proposals I have seen as replacements for the V bombers are militarized VC-10s and Concordes with missiles under their wings.
With a 60,000 ton aircraft carrier you don't really need VTOL, you can use CATOBAR. The irony of VTOL is that it was actually intended for air force use due to worries about airfield vulnerability before being picked up for use on smaller aircraft carriers.
It doesn't look like those carriers were as future proof as the USN ones. The elevators in the middle of the decks are obviously a major operational problem.
Four CVA-01s are quite doable if the older ships are retired without upgrade. They were really showing their age by later World War II anyways.
Seems like a good arrangement if the Type 82s carry some kind of anti-ship missile system, but otherwise the Type 42 might be a better choice. It can do much of what the Type 82 can, but is more affordable.
Compared to our timeline, the Suez War actually has those types of ships play a critical role in the victory of the Tripartite powers.
That would be helpful.
I suppose one question is how much the nuclear program butterflies Sweden's other defense programs. In our timeline the Swedish military was made to choose between conventional or nuclear weapons for financial reasons. I'm interested in what you have on the Australian nuclear weapon plans.
Instead of that just go with weapons sharing for West Germany, Italy, Turkey, and the Benlux states, as in our timeline? |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 26 2013, 07:57 PM Post #30 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
1.) As a research test bed, it is viable, most certainly. 2.) With the Phantom in service as a fighter bomber, the Crusader interceptor would then stick around for most of the 1960s, with the replacement being a Mach 3 Tomcat. The A-5 can have a longer life in a situation where there is still a role for nuclear strike carrier bombers. It was unrelated to the F-108. As a conventional bomb truck, the A-6 has her number. An F-111B derivative does have some interesting potential as a heavy naval strike aircraft and would perhaps replace the A-6 as well as the A-5. 3.) Those proposals amount to an aircraft that falls between roles. The Gnat and the Mosquito work as light attack aircraft, but the RAF and RN don't necessarily need one; the former has the Hunter in large numbers and the latter has the Buccaneer. Depending on the bomb load and performance, it could be squeezed into RN service as a fighter-bomber, but if the RN is to have full sized carriers, then it makes more sense to go for a Phantom. 4.) The RAF needs several types of aircraft: - A Mach 2.5-3 long range high performance air superiority fighter (Hawker Siddeley Arrow) - A Mach 2+ versatile fighter/strike/attack aircraft for home defence and RAF Germany that has potential for export sales - A Hunter replacement fighter-bomber/attack plane (Hawker P.1121, perhaps. Superior to Jaguar, cheaper than Phantom and with export potential) - Close air support fighter 5.) The Harrier is for CAS; the historical derivative of the P.1127 would probably do, with the P.1154 opening up some very interesting potential. 6.) The Vickers Type 583/AFVG/UKVG proposals were excellent multi-role planes that capably fill the strike and interdiction role needed in Europe and can provide a useful swing role fighter for Middle East and Far East deployments. 7.) Skybolt is an ALBM, whereas Blue Steel was more of an ALCM; some of the derivatives were very fast and long ranged. The B.3 Vulcan is a decent mod and there were other proposals that would have increased bomb load and range. 8.) Agreed. That could kill off the Harrier as an RN aircraft. It opens up options: A.) Phantoms B.) Standardize on Buccs and the AF/UKVG fighters, with 24 of each C.) 18 light attack planes - Mosquito, Skyhawk D.) A CTOL variant of the Harrier 9.) Hermes and Centaur are small enough for RAN and RCN needs and have enough service life left to make them quite useful, perhaps providing a market for Sea Harriers. 10.) The Type 82 would essentially be RN guided missile light cruisers and would get Exocets or equivalent in time. Building 4 of them would be expensive, but would provide high end defence to the carriers, with the Type 42s providing numbers. 11.) That gives a good basis for the cruiser completion/refits and a decent reason for them to stick around. With the Indonesian situation, having a cruiser at Singapore along with a carrier group would be quite suitable, particularly given the Indonesian Sverdlov. 12.) I'll put some thoughts down below; there is a lot of good stuff on Secret Projects done by uk 75. 13.) If Sweden goes nuclear, then the relative size of her conventional forces would fall. 14.) I'd say weapon sharing would do the job nicely. RAF: Bomber Command 2 x Avro Vulcan squadrons (24; Strategic Nuclear Deterence + Strategic Heavy Bombing) 6 x TSR-2 squadrons (96; SACEUR nuclear role + theatre strike) Fighter Command 5 x Hawker Siddeley Arrow squadrons (120) 5 x Fairey Delta II (120) 2 x UKVG (48) 2 x Harrier (48) 2 x P.1121 (48) In wartime, Harriers and P.1121s to Germany, along with 1 Delta II squadron Transport Command 3 x Hawker Siddeley 681 transport Squadrons (with conventional Medway engines) 2 x Short Belfast 5 x Hercules + as many Fairey Rotodynes as necessary Coastal Command 2 x Nimrod 2 x Buccaneer RAFG (336) 2 x Hawker Siddeley Arrow (48) 2 x UKVG (48) 4 x Fairey Delta II (96) 2 x P.1121 (48) 2 x Harrier (48) Far East/Middle East 2 x TSR-2 Squadron (32) 1 x P.1121 Squadrons (24) 1 x UKVG (24) Folland Mosquito: 120 for training Royal Navy (goal) 4-5 SSBN (16 Polaris) 21+ SSN (1 Dreadnought, 2 Valiant, 4 Churchill, 6 Swiftsure, 8 Trafalgar) 4 CVA (48-54 aircraft) 2 CVH 1 BB (stationary flagship) 4 CL 4 DLG 12 DDG 14 Type 22 FFG 10 Type 21 FFG 26 Leander FF 10 Tribal FF Edited by Simon Darkshade, Dec 26 2013, 08:46 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Dec 27 2013, 06:46 PM Post #31 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
British Army c.1960 BAOR 1st British Corps 1st Armoured Division 2nd Infantry Division (Mech) 3rd Armoured Division 4th Infantry Division (Mech) Berlin Brigade UK 1st Infantry Division (NATO Reserve) 3rd Infantry Division (UK Strategic Reserve) 16th Airborne Division British II Corps 5th Infantry Division 6th Armoured Division 7th Armoured Division Aden 1 bttn Gibraltar 1 bttn Malta 1 bttn Cyprus 2 bttn Belize 1 bttn Suez 2 bttn Hong Kong 2 bttn + 2 Gurkha bttn Borneo 2 bttn Malaysia 17th Gurkha Division Territorial Army 9th Infantry Division 11th Armoured Division Brigades: 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56 I see the British II Corps as quasi-reserve formations, with Corps and Divisional HQs and 2 Brigades active (with 2 battalions) and round-out TA brigades and battalions attached in wartime mobilization. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jan 28 2014, 05:34 AM Post #32 |
|
Today's update is on the Argentine aerospace industry. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jan 28 2014, 05:34 AM Post #33 |
|
Also, thank you for the OOBs and other information Darkshade. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 29 2014, 12:27 AM Post #34 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
Good to see Argentina getting in on the fun! I shall have to remember these plans, in case we ever repeat our Cold War game. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jan 29 2014, 05:21 AM Post #35 |
|
Glad to see the comments. I have another update planned for tomorrow (the first purely British one), and then begins the more difficult task of determining the naval and air force situation for the great powers. I haven't figured out how I'm going to handle the army updates yet, but there hasn't been much divergence in that for anyone yet and I don't see that happening until around the mid-1960s for everyone but the great powers. |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 29 2014, 06:36 AM Post #36 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I seem to remember there were one or two other craft (either transport or attack aircraft) under development about the same time, but they might have been older prop planes. Either way, it wouldn't be too hard to imagine FMA branching out more after the fighter is successfully exported in quantity. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 29 2014, 06:40 AM Post #37 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Revisiting the British Army orbat, the II Corps could probably be a reserve formation to save money. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jan 29 2014, 06:53 AM Post #38 |
|
The current time in the timeline is around 1963 or so. Once I get through 1963, it should be much easier to do updates. Right now I have to research a decade's worth of information to go from 1952 to ~1963, so it's taking a quite some time to do each update. I'm considering switching to more of a story format once I get through 1964 or so, which might actually make things go faster. It would certainly suit some the more action oriented parts going forward (Second Korean War, etc.). |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jan 29 2014, 06:58 AM Post #39 |
|
I've also updated the rolling list of ahistorical systems. Click here for that post (or you can scroll up). |
![]() |
|
| Basil Fawlty | Jan 29 2014, 07:10 AM Post #40 |
|
Post Tenebras Lux
|
I think these might have been the planes I was thinking of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.Ae._24_Calquin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.Ae._30_%C3%91anc%C3%BA In our timeline, the Korean War never happened, which reduced the production numbers of MiG-15s and Sabres so that in turn there was a larger export market for the Pulqui. Obviously, that won't be the case here. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jan 29 2014, 07:04 PM Post #41 |
|
As promised, today's update is on the Mighty Midge. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jan 30 2014, 04:25 AM Post #42 |
|
Any thoughts on the British and French navies and air forces post-Suez? They pose opposite challenges, as there is a lot information on the 1960s Royal Navy than the 1960s French Navy, yet more information on the 1960s French Air Force than the 1960s Royal Air Force. Also, the British and French collaborated on a few military and aerospace projects in our timeline (at least as far back as the Comet/Caravelle), occasionally with the West Germans and others. With stronger economies and more secure empires might they develop more of their own equipment, or will collaboration proceed as it did historically? Edited by Delta Force, Jan 30 2014, 04:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 30 2014, 06:06 AM Post #43 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
On fighters and bombers, unlikely. On missiles, there is potential. Joint development of a Commonwealth-French 'Super IRBM' with 3600+ miles range and SLBM development does have some interesting butterflies. RAF 100-120 multi role planes for ME/FE 360 fighters and fighter bombers in FC 120 LR and VLR strategic bombers in BC 320 fighters and fighter bombers in RAF Germany + 80 Light Bomber Force/SACEUR nuclear strike reserve 60-100 Coastal Command 160 transports 240 Rotodynes French Navy 3 Clemenceau class CV 1 Jeanne d'Arc CVH 1 BB in training service/1 in reserve 2 Colbert/De Grasse CLG conversions 4 Suffren + 8 Tourville DDGs 8 T53 + 12 T47 DDs Assorted frigates and avisos 4 SSBNs 8-10 SSNs |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Jan 30 2014, 07:29 AM Post #44 |
|
The Black Prince rocket program is intended as a space launch vehicle, not an IRBM. That said, I'm not sure if the 1958 US-UK Mutual Defense Agreement is officially in the timeline yet. If not, it certainly opens up some interesting possibilities for the British and French nuclear programs, such as alternatives to Skybolt and Polaris.
I don't think I've seen the Rotodyne before (or I might have seen it and forgotten about it). I was considering a regional STOL aircraft, likely a tiltwing, but I'm definitely going to look into the Rotodyne. Going to be a rather noisy world with all the STOL aircraft and SSTs flying about.
I'm not sure about the Vanguard, but the French considered modernizing one of the Richelieu class ships into a guided missile battleship (it would have used USN missiles, France lacking domestic designs at the time). They might be too big for the great powers, but perhaps they could build more economical fire support cruisers with 8 inch guns. Also, because of the costs of developing conversions, it might make more sense for France to build a second Colbert class ship as a CLG instead of upgrading the De Grasse. I'm not sure how common international warship designs were at this time, but the Suffren and Type 82 are so similar in design and role that (in modern times at least) the two countries could go with a common design. Edited by Delta Force, Jan 30 2014, 07:29 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jan 31 2014, 12:04 AM Post #45 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
The French saw a role for an IRBM and the British did work on Blue Streak as an MRBM. This mutual identification of a need opens up the room for the development of an interesting missile that could see service alongside or instead of other rockets. Having something with 2000+ miles provides a useful basis for future development, with a 3000-3500+ mile range missile a good long term weapon that fulfils the notion of trying to compete as major powers. The Rotodyne has a lot of potential in a variety of military roles, such as longer range ASW, long range air assault deployment of troops and light vehicles and AEW. In the civilian context, it fills a useful gap between large long range airliners and personal aircraft, with the noise issue something that can be reduced over time with continued development and investment. There wasn't any chance of new cruiser construction with 8" guns; the two CLs completed were as anti-aircraft cruisers, making their missile conversion a logical continuation. The largest French gun postwar was the 127mm; keeping the Richelieus as reserve training ships with a convenient secondary fire support role helps them stay around for the crucial period of 1960-1970. If they survive past that, then the technology and need for a modernized battleship starts to come around. There were Vanguard conversion proposals made in the 1950s; keeping it as a conventional battleship until later on gets a more effective set of kit. The Type 82s were bigger than the Suffrens, but some commonality is possible. |
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 19 2014, 08:03 AM Post #46 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Have you given any thought to small detachments of F-111B strike bombers for deployment on aircraft carriers as a successor to the A-3? |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Mar 22 2014, 08:23 PM Post #47 |
|
The project is kind of paused for now as I try to figure out a way to revamp it. It was getting a bit too big in scope. As for F-111B strike bombers, that is an interesting concept that popped up on AH.com a few days ago. Due to the rather unique environment the F-111 developed in, I'm not sure it would be a joint Air Force/Navy program like it was in our timeline. It might not even be a TAC program, since they adopted the F-110 Spectre (historical and ahistorical F-4 variants) in this timeline. It seems that the F-111 program in this timeline would originate at SAC. The historical TAC/SAC F-111 variants would replace the B-47 and older B-58 variants, while FB-111H type strategic bomber variants would replace the B-52s. As jetpunk as the timeline is, the B-70 can't be a long term replacement for the B-52. Computers are somewhat behind our timeline, but by the late 1960s and early 1970s they will be developed enough for F-111 purposes. The question is how the USN supercarrier wing develops going into the 1960s. They don't use the F-4 in this timeline (the Crusader III won instead), so the Crusader is still the official aircraft of the USN. The Crusader III is something of a short range interceptor, but they need a longer range one and more advanced strike aircraft going forward. Edited by Delta Force, Mar 22 2014, 08:25 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 23 2014, 02:49 AM Post #48 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It was that thread that inspired the question. An FB-111H would not replace the B-52 as such, but augment it by replacing earlier models. The B-70 could replace the B-52, but it would cost the other arms of the triad. It could be part of a planned High-Medium-Low mix: 150 B-70, 650 AMSA, 450 FB-111. The FB-111s would kick in the door, followed by the B-70s striking at key targets and then the AMSA/B-1s would go in with a full doomsday loadout of ALCMs, SRAMs and gravity bombs. I'd still be in favour of keeping the B-52Gs and Hs around as cruise missile carriers and/or for conventional bombing. The F-111 could be the result of a TFBX or TBX, with the strike/bomber aspects emphasized early on. Thus, in the 1960s, the USN would still need a long range fleet air defence fighter and the USAF TAC would still need a new air superiority fighter, but both forces would have an excellent long range strike aircraft with secondary fighter capabilities on the way. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Mar 23 2014, 07:06 AM Post #49 |
|
McNamara was the driving force behind the joint F-111 program, as both services had tried to do separate programs. That said, there are some historical and alternate history secretaries of defense who might have supported something like that. Donald A. Quarles was the deputy secretary of defense and was at point to succeed Neil H. McElroy, but Quarles died suddenly of a heart attack and McElroy was succeeded by Thomas S. Gates, Jr. (apparently no relation to the later Secretary Gates). Thomas Gates focused heavily on strategic weapons policy and was the driving force behind SIOP. He was rather pro-Navy and spoke about the flexibility of aircraft carriers to fight in conditions ranging from small conventional wars all the way through to general nuclear war. An F-111 type aircraft could add to the flexibility of the USN carrier force and replace the A-5 Vigilante in the attack role. Perhaps it could even take up some other roles in the USN, such as refueling. |
![]() |
|
| Delta Force | Mar 24 2014, 06:22 AM Post #50 |
|
I might recycle much of this into my Korea goes nuclear timeline idea. Almost the same PoD, but a more clear and dramatic one. It will also help with the focus. My original timeline was a bit too technology focused and didn't do as good a job showing how everything fit in with the world situation going on at the time.
Edited by Delta Force, Mar 24 2014, 06:23 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







8:39 AM Jul 11