Battleships--The drivers for the completion of VANGUARD, LION and TEMERAIRE have been established and the projected completion dates set.  In light of the identified need for an efficient medium calibre AA gun and the recognized shortage of the 5.25" guns, would consideration be given to completing these ships with 20 x 4.5" in BD mtgs MK III? IRC, the orginal design of the KGV's had this armament until it was decided that the 4.5" was too light for anti-destroyer work.  The mounting is "slightly" easier to produce that the heavier gun mount and the production is on the same assembly line at Vickers and can be accomplished at other facilities as well.
A couple of things. First, we have a significant demand for monitors, so much so that we have had to 'build a new yard using American managament tachinques' to build both them, and small monitors, and a standard fast cargo liner motorship. Vanguard also cost 7.5 million, and is just too expensive as a second class ship. As a one off, whe's acceptable, as try as I might I could not argue against Geoff and Shane's points on retaining Vanguard.

The 4.5" issue is something we have looked at. Basically, the RN regarded it as the 'ideal' DP secondary. That's why they replaced the 4.5 with it in the KGV design. As a matter of 'maintaining historical friction', it's difficult to replace the 5.25. Thta said, we agree: more 4.5" would be better for AA.

As an aside, enough twin 15" exist to complete 2 VANGUARDs without disarming any existing ships. There are the four mountings which were used in VANGUARD, a spare mounting used in the monitor ABERCROMBIE, the mount from MARSHAL SOULT  used in ROBERTS and the two mounts in EREBUS and TERROR.

Again, agreed. We have a requirement for about 10-12 heavy monitors. What we do NOT have the drivers for is repeats of the traditional WWI- Belgian Coast monitors, like Abercrombie and Roberts. While useful for the Med, we are not bombarding the Belgian coast in tidal shallows. We need deep draft, ocean-going, fast ships. They do not need massive torpedo/mine protection. And we have to build them in the same yard as big Suxxex class 12,000t vargo-liner/reefers....

Look to the IJN's old 1880s Hashidate class protected cruisers for the sort of design we think will result.

Aircraft Carriers--I think the AUDACIOUS class is still a viable option.  The design exists and the material requirements will be less than the MALTA class.  And it meets the requirement for an American sized airgroup.  Even with the design revisions incorporated in 1941/42, this will get a large carrier in service faster than the MALTA design.
We have a ~10% increase in UK production/investment, so material issues are less important. The choice is really going to depend on what we do in APOD with USS Ranger in the Med. The ability of her huge airgroup to keep enemy strikes away was the driver in 'olf FFO' which resulted in  Audacious becoming just a design waypoint for the 'Singapore' class (which the Malta will become). One things is starkly clear - it's an either/or choice.

I have always been a big fan of the COLOSSUS class; relatively inexpensive, easy to build and embarking a good sized airgroup for the size of the ship.  Looking at the origins of the class, as a fighter carrier, this is your platform to get naval fighters over the fleet. Its biggest flaw is the lack of speed.  I think it would be reasonable to build enough of the class to meet the immediate needs of the fleet and then move on to the CENTAURs.  This class addresses the need for more speed to act with the fleet without a huge increase in size.

I served aboard one, HMAS Melbourne. These were a very good wartime austerity design and could be built quickly. The Centaurs were much more a warship version of this austerity design. Aside from speed, it really did not have much more to offer than a Colossus, and it cost more. What the RN needed in OTL and needs in APOD is numbers, and fast.

So what we have are drivers for a two-phase RN CV force, which is inferior to the 'perfect solution'. The perfect solution is Clossus, Centaur, Malta.

What we are looking at the drivers to produce is much less efficient: Colossus Singapore. That generates a need for a real austerity convoy carrier (NOT an escort carrier, more like a souped up MAC ship with a hangar) and that we can do on teh 'big new Clyde Yard cargo liner hull'.

To my way of the thinking, the biggest problem with British carriers operations is not the size of the airgroup, but the doctrine on its use.  They seemed to be wedded to the small deck strike, regardless of the number of aircraft embarked.  The RN needs to switch to USN style deckhandling and strike size.

AGreed. This is why the USS Ranger's performance in the Med is so central. We looked at the 'old FFO' performance of Ranger and said 'what would the RN think of this?' The result is big airgroup conversion by Lyster and the Admiralty. And THAT makes the 'Singapore' (Malta type) carrier the RN preference.

Cruisers--IMVHO, there is not a material need to reduce the FIJI's to 9 gun ships, sufficient production facilities exist to build enough triple mounting for these ships.  Now the sort of change in staff requirements that lead to the design of the UGANDAs may be sufficient to warrant the change to 9 guns.

We will come up with something like this. It just comes down to details of production and capacity.

With the DIDO's, I would complete the last three of the original group, CLEOPATRA, SIRIUS and ARGONAUT as repeats of CHARYBDIS. There are sufficient UD mtg MK II available to accomplish this without any effect of production of guns and mountings if you replace the UD MK II's on some of the depot ships with twin 4".  The remainder of the orginal group, I would replace Q turret in the 10 gun ships and the 4" in the 8 gun ships with a quad 2 pdr.  The DIADEM's should be completed as design OTL.  With the completion of three extra ships armed with 4.5", there will be considerable resistance, IMVHO, to reverting to the smaller calibre for the remainder.  The cruiser qualities of these ships will be considered more valuable than the additional  AA value they may bring.

If completing the last three DIDOs with the UD mounting is unacceptable, I propose using the BD mtg MK III in lieu of the MK IV. The MK IV will not be available in any considerable numbers until late 1943 and will be needed for destroyers.  The deeper hulls of the cruisers should accommodate the MK III without any trouble and the MK III is in production now.

Yes, something like this is going to occur. It just comes down to the production, as you say. The issue with the 5.25 is really one of weight and volume. The ships are cramped even with 8 5.25, but are still an Arethusa 'minumim fleet and trade protection cruiser' with 10 4.5.

SO it's a really curly issue What will effect it is that these initial ships are not expected to have a long life postwar, but the 'fixed ones HAVE TO have a long postwar life.And they can't if they are cramped vessels without remaining design margin.

Concerning the "County" replacements, I see two options, with subsets.  First, build a new 9.2" gun.  I think this is the least probable course of action as the resources just are not there to design and build a new gun.  The second option is to use an existing gun.  Here I can see three possibilities. 1. use the MK IXs in storage. This gun, while a bit long in the tooth, is in widespread use with plenty of support and ammunition distributed around the world. 2. Use the 9.2"/50 that are in storage.  These guns were removed from the NELSONs and armoured cruisers, but no mounting exist.  Since the new ships would require a new turret and mounting, this is not an obstacle.  3.  D. K. Brown refers to a MK XV gun developed as an improved MK IX, but never put into service.  He mentions that 36 guns were ordered, and some were proofed, but he does not know if all of the guns were built.

itis this gun we may use.

The second option is to buy American. It has been implied that the US will provide a replacement for AUSTRALIA, which I assume ( with all of the dangers that entails) that this means the transfer of a BALTIMORE class CA.  This introduces the 8"/55 to the British/Commonwealth inventory.  But this is a one off situation, so that this ship is really only supportable from Australia.  This leads to two possibilities; buy the guns, mountings and fire control equipment from the US or buy incomplete BALTIMORE cruisers from the US and complete them to meet RN requirements.  The clarity of hindsight shows that these ships were used by the USN postwar in exactly the role of second class battleship proposed for the British ships.  This may be a politically unpalatable option, but it leaves British construction resources free for other projects.

Good idea. It is politically impossible, but it is a good idea. We are going to cancel the 'old FFO' idea of  the USA giving a replacement CA. Basically,  the AUstralian response is going to be more realistic: use teh incident to guilt trip the US into priority for scarce and valuable stuff like machine tools and specialist economic /industry gear. If we go down the 9.2 armoured cruiser role, the Australians will order one.

Finally, concerning cruisers, I would still try to get the US to convert two "D" class into anti-aircraft cruisers with 5"/38 guns.  This adds to the anti-aircraft capability of the fleet using what would otherwise be marginally useful hulls.  The remaining "C" and "D" should be transfered to minor allies (Poland, Greece, Brazil?) or used for alongside duties such as static training ships or berthing hulks
AGreed..

That concludes my pontifficating.  Now for a couple of questions.

What is the status of the Destroyers for Bases deal.  I think most of the drivers that lead to that arrangement still exist.  British destroyer losses up to the loss of France are still there and while I recognize that these are less than ideal ships, they are still hulls in the water.  Remember, these are not Lend-Lease assets, these ships were transfered directly to British ownership, lock, stock and keel plate.

As dead as mutton. The RN did not like the deal as they knew that the ships would have to be rebuilt on receipt. With teh MN still in play, there is no need for a DD boost. This is good news, it means that the MN, RNN, RNethN, Brazilians etc can all acquire some while leaving extras for the USN when they need them the most (coastal U-boat campaign).

And what direction is British destroyer development taking.  Will we still see the large number of utility ships followed by the large fleet destroyers or will we see a more limited construction of the utility type and the "U/V/W/Z/C" classes be something more akin to the "Battles"?

Basically, Geoff has proposed as close to OTL as possible.

Cheers: Mark