Battleship Building - Vanguard
So as I understand it, you’re saying 1 x Vanguard will get built OK, seeing the drivers I can believe that, however I think that your “We (most probably) have a 'Far East Fleet fully armoured battlecruiser' launched in late 1941” is a bit optimistic time wise.

Comment: Oh, the hull is easy and in wartime these tended to be launched when structurally completed to 90% to clear the slip for new construction. The complicated bit is the fit-out. In wartime they tended to do a lot of fitting (especially machiner) alongside the fit-out berth. Prewar this was done on the slip. All it does is trade less time on the building way for more time alongside the fit-out berth, there being more of teh latter than the former. There is no time saving, really.

In OTL Vanguard was laid down October 41, I can see that without the Dry Cargo repair factor this date will come forward, but it CAN’T happen before mid 1940 (if the divergence between OTL and FFO/APOD is mid 1940, then logically we can’t allow Vanguard to be laid down before that date if it didn’t happen OTL it can’t happen here). Taking the POD as July, then realistically I’d say that the best you can plausibly have is the order being placed in August 40, and ship laid down October 40.

Comment: Agree. The material buildup for the ship was slow (hull plating etc), they were working on the long lead items including armour, machinery and the main armament refurbishment. Basically, having the main armament takes a year off the build time. If we want an actual battlecruiser, then it's even faster. Tiger's armour exists in store at Rosyth. Her armament does too, but we have scheduled that for monitors.

Assuming that the turrets are substantially complete at that time, and applying the 20-22 month building time we used earlier, then Vanguard won’t be ready until July/August 42.

Do you agree? Have I missed anything?

Comment: Agree. I don't see anything missed. We'll have to do some checking on armour production stats.

Battleship Building - Lions
OK, the decision to build Vanguard will have thrown some red meat to the Gun club at the Admiralty. Having pacified them, I can see Goodall prevailing and keeping the Lions remaining “on hold” sure they are “nice to have”, but so are plenty of other things (Cruisers, Carriers) and there simply aren’t enough resources to go round. There is no need to build the Lions yet (and they can’t be built without sacrificing something that is needed), so the drivers point towards them not going ahead.

Once Japan enters the war, and Admiral Philips has his defeat then the drivers change. At this point the “We need Battleships” lobby would prevail, and I’d expect 2 Lions to be laid down and built to the timescale I set out at part 2 (NB, there are only enough turrets for 2 ships, if the Admiralty want to lay down 4, expect Goodall to point out that the additional 2 ships will take at least an extra year to build, and to stress that they probably won’t be ready in time to take part in the war. He’s also likely to stress that the additional Lions are likely to displace other high priority units (Carriers) that can be completed in time).

As far as guns are concerned, I still lean towards the 15 inch option (especially now you’ve confirmed that the guns are available) it’s the safe option, going 16 inch adds risk to the programme, and the important thing is to get the ships out to the fleet ASAP. Throw in the logistics issue (and the Pacific fleet is going to be fighting at the end of a very long logistics chain as it is, so anything that simplifies things has to be considered), and I think the case is more or less made.

Note - If the strategic situation allows, I suggest that 2 R class be decommissioned (they are really getting too old and slow for the battleline, and their crews can provide an experienced nucleus for the Lions)

Comment: We'll have to do lots of digging here, there is a lot to this issue. If speed in service becomes the most important driver, then the fastest option is repeat Vanguards. If 'powerful BB with long range' are the biggest drivers, then an actual 16" gunned class is the best option. It would take a delicate balancing of several drivers to get a class which uses existing guns in a new gun system, when the design for the 16" system exists and prototype guns and rotating components have been funded, developed and built. The quad 14" is also an option - on a 4 turret ship. 16 x 14" would water anyone's eyes! So the options are:

4 x 4 14", ~55,000t
4 x 2 15" ~50,000t
3 x 3 15" ~50,000t
4 x 3 15" ~55,000t
3 x 3 16" ~55,000t
And with Goodall fighting all of them tooth and nail. Fun times!

Repair of Jean Bart and Richelieu
I wasn’t aware of the FFO US option. Like you said, it seems logical. I can’t see any reason to change it HOWEVER while it fits nicely with the British and French drivers, how does it sit with the US ones? If it fits with them then fine (no sense reinventing the wheel for the sake of it), but if it doesn’t, then you’ve got Brown as a back up option.

Comment: Agreed. This is one for Russ to look at and validate. He's the US Team Leader.

Carrier Building at John Brown
I have to disagree with you on the MALTA, as I don’t think that the drivers/timelines allow it yet. We’re talking about a building slot in October 41, which realistically means allocating it/starting to pull together material 4-6 months early I just don’t see the drivers pointing to a MALTA that soon.

My source for this is Nelson to Vanguard, according to this the OTL the discussions leading to MALTA came out of the Future Building Committee’s discussions of requirements that took place in December 42 you’re bringing it forward by 18 months what are the drivers for that?

Comment: The drivers there may come from horrible experiences in the Pacific and (if they stay the same or broadly similar, which looks likely) and observing what Ranger does with a big air group on a fragile platform in the Med as opposed to a tough platform with a small airgroup (Illustrious). If that happens in APOD, it will be a driver too. So it cannot come forward 18 months, but maybe 6-10?? Now, if we have a 'Lion with US style steam plant' going forward even against Goodall's opposition, then we have an advance on the carrier as well - we have the machinery. The Lion program can be raided for its long lead items (the machinery), and the assembled material can be used too even though the hull is very different  in design (carriers are a volumetric/acceleration hull, BB are a volume distribution/speed hull). That's the real advantage of an ongoing Lion program. Goodall would be all over it like a Taliban terrorist on to a pretty goat. It's also a foil to the 'gun club'.

And now we also re-open the RN's big cruiser debate too!

If you’re going for a larger carrier than the Implacable (and here, I admit that the drivers point that way), I’d say that an EAGLE/ARK ROYAL looks more realistic in fact, on my reading of N to V, I’d say that an EAGLE is a necessary precursor to a MALTA (it was the perceived advantages from EAGLE that led to the discussions that led to MALTA).

Look at the difference in sizes:
· Implacable 23,450t standard
· Eagle, 36,800t standard
· Malta, 46,900t standard
Bearing in mind that we’re talking about decisions made mid 1941 (i.e. before Japan enters the war), I just can’t see the drivers to jump from Implacable to Malta without the intervening step.

What do you think?

Comment: I'd genrally agree and note an issue with 'compression'. Looking at this closely, I cannot see the solid decision for a 'global fleet' style of ship being made before Feb-Apr 42 and orders being placed before mid 42. From purely experiences in the Med, they can start talking about bigger carriers, using Ark Royal as the conceptual root. That starts the debate going, and starts DNC sketching. Basically, they had a stop-start debate in OTL and Eagle (and orders) was a waystation along that process. In compressing this, the Eagle design will just become a 'Malta/Singapore second sketch' design in a process of which the big carrier is the endpoint.

What this implies if obvious, when/if they DO make that decision, it becomes a full-blooded major Imperial policy decision, with the carriers as the most important item. I think that may kill (or at least severely delay) the Lion class because they must strip that program for its slips and material. They'll need to build 'supercarriers' (at least the first pair) as fast as it is humanly possible to do so. They won't be building an interim type like Eagle, or indded like Centair. They'll have two types, the Majestic/Colossus utility carrier, and the 'global carrier'. Then they'll hae to think about its escort. This raises a cruiser type for the utility ship, and a big-gun ship for the 'global'.

Tech Transfer with the US
We know that US steam plant is much more efficient, but exactly when do the RN find out? And when they do, how long before they believe it (overcoming the “Not Invested Here” syndrome), and unless you intend building all your capitol ships in US yards, how long is it going to take to transfer the knowledge/equipment required to UK yards?

All this gives you the earliest practical date to introduce US style plant to the RN, and while its a very nice idea, I don’t think that the timeline will allow the Lions to benefit (unless the Admiralty are willing to sanction a delay, which given that the Lions are going to be a “crash priority, get them out the dock” build, isn’t likely).

What do you think? Does this all hang together?

Comment: The Admiralty knew in the late 30s that they had dropped behind the US in steam plant technology. They thought the USN was taking a significant technical risk. They had their own development program, but it was put onto the back burner by the urgent ned to re-arm. The USN had an additional 3 years as a result. The RN DNC followed developments and knew of the distance they had fallen behind. They were just too busy fighting a war and building stuff as fast as they could to do anything about it. In OTL they gave everything they had away to the USA for free and did not have the industrial capacity to do anything with a technological backtrade even if they had wanted to. Here, such desperation does not exist and they DO have the capacity to do build something from the back-trade. What does the USN have to trade? Well, the DNC and Engineers would say this is a high priority. Sure, it will use resources to tool up for, but in APOD they have these resources to do the job and the big British companies were no slouches in this area themselves. They were all running their own programs in the same area.

It's interesting to note that the USN had real trouble operating German high pressure steam plants postwar. The RN had far fewer problems. The reason, I think, is that with their extensive hi-pressure experience the USN tried to apply it to German plant, with mediocre results. The British, on the other hand, had little such experience and simply adopted the German procedures, with half-decent results.

On the timeline, while I suspect you may be right, the timeline will determine it.

What I think may very well benefit might just be the RN 'big crusier' program, if it comes to be in APOD.

You have actually done everyone a service here. I thought that we probably already had this 'sorted' due to the debates held under 'old FFO', and what you've really done here is point out that this assumption is dead wrong. A good example, if the RN's Cv drivers result in the 'Malta' class 'global carrier' and the light fleet carrier as a 'utility carrier' as the future of the RN, then the linked needs for a heavy surface ship to escort the big 'un ALSO implies a new big cruiser for the 'utility ships'. The existing heavy cruisers are middle aged at best and the new large CL are going to be way too cramped and power limited by the time the need is recognised. They were never designed for that role and can't be modified for it - it's the old traditional 'armoured cruiser' role as station flagship. The RN won't need many of them, but they will need some.

Fascinating.

Cheers: Mark