building a navy

[hammerlock]

Here's the question. Your building a navy in 1935-37, your just getting started so you so don't have a lot of shipworks to build them. Who do you buy new from the British, the USA, Japan, Italy, France Germany? Every nation had a tradition of building and built some very good ships, so who's designs do you go for. You can mix and match as well. This a full Navy carriers, battleships the works. The only limit is that your building in the mid 30's you don't knowledge of how these ships proformed in the war.

Edited September 1, 2005 by hammerlock

[Macarthur]

hmm, japan was building some scary looking stuff back then in battleships, German Uboats were very effective and hmm, for support ships, cruisers, destroyers and the like, the point goes to America IMO. I think some british Carrier designs were pretty good, but there aren't any truly spectacular carriers until the wa gets under way ad then american super carriers take the cake (with japanese carriers close behind however)

[Gabe]

Here's the question.  Your building a navy in 1935-37, your just getting started so you so don't have a lot of shipworks to build them.  Who do you buy new from the British, the USA, Japan, Italy, France Germany?  Every nation had a tradition of building and built some very good ships, so who's designs do you go for.  You can mix and match as well.  This a full Navy carriers, battleships the works.  The only limit is that your building in the mid 30's you don't knowledge of how these shi[s proformed in the war.

215174[/snapback]

 

It would depend alot on your relations with those nations. It would suck to buy German only to find yourself dependent on the Allies a few years later with no access to German tech support.

[KingSargent]

hmm, japan was building some scary looking stuff back then in battleships, German Uboats were very effective and hmm, for support ships, cruisers, destroyers and the like, the point goes to America IMO. I think some british Carrier designs were pretty good, but there aren't any truly spectacular carriers until the wa gets under way ad then american super carriers take the cake (with japanese carriers close behind however)

215188[/snapback]

German subs in the '30s sucked. Mostly the little training/coastal boats.

[TheSilentType]

Crewing your fleet is going to be tough if you don't have many experience officers and sailors. Kind of tough to operate an effective carrier force if your navy has only operated aircraft off of ships for a year or two.

[KingSargent]

You didn't specify a size of the Navy, or where it was to operate - ships the French and Italians designed to contest contol of the Mediterranean had much shorter ranges than Japanese and US ships designed for the vast Pacific.

 

But - where to go for ships? Unless you are an Asian nation, Japan is out. Britain has a long tradition of building for foreign powers, but her shipyards were badly hit by the Great Depression, and a lot of them closed. I am not sure of Germany's capacity, but they were rebuilding their own navy and I doubt they had slips to spare. Italy and France build good ships, but again most of their shipyard space will be tied up. That leaves the US for most of the ships, and quite by chance the US has some great advantages, if you can pry 5"/38s and Fire Control Systems out of them. Get a license to build 40mm and 25mm light AA guns from Bofors.

 

Carriers: There are three places to go, Japan, the US, and the UK. Japan is bottled up building and rebuilding her own fleet (some of the IJN's cruisers went back for major mods three times before they worked right). The British have not yet built a large carrier from the keel up and their operations, quite frankly, suck green toad slime. The most modern of the UK's CVs, under construction in the '30s, had elevators designed to fit a Swordfish with wings folded and a minimal clearance around that. Seems the Brits could not conceive of the possibility that they might someday operate planes bigger than a Swordfish during the 20 years or so life expectancy of the ships. British carrier doctrine and operations were hampered by absurd safety regulations (the flight deck had to be completely clear before an a/c could take off or land) and the fact that their planes and pilots, until 1938, were supplied by the RAF - and the FAA got the dregs. The big USN CVs could have put all the RN's FAA groups on one and had room to spare. (I'm talking about what they actually carried, not what their capacity was. Henderson had to strip the whole navy to fill the three biggest CV with planes for an exercize in the 1930s).

 

With the Japanese full up and the UK not knowing what CVs were for (or hampered by RN control of the a/c) leaves the US. The US would probably give good deals on CVs, it would give them an excuse to expand Newport News. NN built practically indestructible ships - Hornet took more damage before sinking that anything except the Yamatos, and was only abandoned because Japanese surface ships were close (so close, in fact, that they finally put her under). Yorktown was prematurely abandoned. No Essex-class CVs were lost despite horrendous damage to some. Of course this was not known in the '30s, but even then the US CVs had the capacity to operate more planes than any other nation's CVs. If you are going to spend bunches of bucks to build a CV, you should want it to operate as many planes as possible. Ask the USN to teach your flight deck crews how to handle airplanes efficiently too.

 

Battleships: Starting from the "ground up," you don't have a bunch of "Gunbunny" admirals to placate, so an old-fashioned Battle Line is out. You need ships to support the CVs. The best places to get these are France - Dunkerques, Germany - Scharnhorsts, and the US - Alaskas. The French ships will require more speed and US 5"/38 DP guns and FCS, the German ships will require the 5"/38 set-up, and the US ships (which are a gleam in the designer's eye at this date) require a Torpedo Protection System. You should build one per CV, to provide a heavy AA battery and keep enemy CAs away from the CV(s?) they accompany. This will be both better and cheaper than having a swarm of CAs to accompany each CV.

 

Cruisers: CAs are out, the 8" gun is too slow-firing. Go for 6" CLs, either the US Brooklyn style (big) or the French Galissonniere class (small). Stick as many 5"/38s and light Bofors AA on as possible. The Italian-designed Soviet Kirov class might be a "sleeper" here. Her 7.1" guns can duel with enemy 8" CAs, and might (I have no data handy) have a ROF and range to overwhelm the 6" CL.

 

Small cruisers and Destroyer Leaders: Take the RN's Arethusa class CL and fit it with an efficent DP battery bigger than the 5"/38. The British 5.25" of the Didos was less than ideal, but that is the size to shoot for - something that can both provide heavy AA and shoot the DDs in in a surface action.

 

DDs: The Japanese are not going to give away their 24" 'Long Lance' ace in the hole, so you are stuck with 21" torpedoes. Buy British for the torps, buy US for the 5"/38 guns and the range. Something around 1800 tons, 36kt speed, 8TT, 4x5"/38s and 6-8xBofors guns with the range to accompany the CVs is what you shoot for.

 

Submarines: For itty-bitty ones go to the RN. Their small subs packed more punch than German ones. The Italians built good subs if you can fit them with better FCS and faster dive times. For big long-range subs, it's back to the US, but stay away from US torpedoes.

 

"Sea Control" ships: (the old-timers here know what's coming) Small slow cheap CVs built on merchant style hulls. Carry 30+ a/c, enough to cover a convoy (if our prospective county has and is dependent on a large merchant fleet) or to provide a reasonable attack group if used in mass. For planes carried, the small CVs should be cheaper than the big ones, and when/if one is lost it's not a great disaster. These small CVs should carry more fuel oil than needed and be able to refuel smaller escorts at sea.

To escort these 'sCVs', a slow AA ship on a merchant style hull of around 1600GRT is needed. It should be able to keep up with the sCVs and carry 8x5"/38s and as many Bofors as can be crammed in. These can be flagships of sCV groups and provide Fighter Direction for the whole force.

Small/slow DDs: Nothing in this class is available in the 1930s. Try to get small vessels with good range (and that can refuel from the sCVs), about 25kts speed and 4x5"/38 and several Bofors, plus ASW weapons. For ASW weapons the Brits and Canadians were working in 1918 on weapons that approximated the late-WW2 Squid. Get these, work on development, and fit them to ships that might run into subs.

 

MTBs and whatnot: Basically useless unless you have an enemy REALLY close to your shore. They are too fragile to last long, so build prototypes and have plans to make bunches in a hurry.

 

Amphibious warfare ships (if you need them): Nothing really exists in the 1930s, except what the Japanese are using in China and they aren't going to give any away. Make plans for cheap, quick-to-build LST and LCT/LSU tytpes. A lot of this depends on whether you are going to land motorized forces or foot-sloggers (if anybody).

 

Miscellaneous: The RN was scrapping hordes of WW1 DDs in the '30s, all with geared turbine engines that had not seen much use. Buy these, connect them to US high-pressure boilers, and use them to power as many ships as you can. Cheap high quality power is good....

[R011]

Here's the question.  Your building a navy in 1935-37, your just getting started so you so don't have a lot of shipworks to build them.  Who do you buy new from the British, the USA, Japan, Italy, France Germany?  Every nation had a tradition of building and built some very good ships, so who's designs do you go for.  You can mix and match as well.  This a full Navy carriers, battleships the works.  The only limit is that your building in the mid 30's you don't knowledge of how these ships proformed in the war.

215174[/snapback]

Your biggest problem will be finding qualifed crews for these ships unless you already have a significant cadre. At least ten percent of your objective size will be needed and at least some of those need to have big ship ands submarine experience. The USN, for instance, expanded ten fold between 1941 and 1945, but already had a number of battleships, submarines, and carriers in commission for years before the war.

 

US ships are probably the best all round, but much more expensive than anyone elses. IIRC, a North Carloina cost over twice as much as a King George V. I'd probably prefer to buy British but try to use such US design elements as AA fire control where possible. It should be feasable to build a Hornet clone in a British yard.

 

One problem is that the British may not have the building capacity for their use and yours, not to mention that all work on your ships would stop dead in September 1939. Many of your smaller ships, cruisers and destroyers, would be complete, but few of your capital ships and carriers. You may not know that for sure, but things are starting to get ominous in Europe and you should remember what happened to foreign ships building in British yards in 1914.

 

If money is not a serious issue, go American. It will cost twice as much, but the ships will be better (especially in their AAA FCS suite) and they have more yard capacity than the UK. Depending on how big a navy a "full" one is, the US may well be your only realistic choice. I would think that five each of fast battleships and large carriers with an appropriate number of cruisers and destroyers would be doable, and you should have them by 1941 if you lay them down in 1935-37..

[hammerlock]

Very interesting choices so far. To fill out the inform in more let say the country in question is canada. So the navy needs to be on two oceans, and at least 2 carriers for each coast. At this time Canada has traditionally used british kit, but this time there a new canadian govn't that wants to breaks way from colonial mind set, and get the best options possible. It realizes that you need to ready for any war before it starts, instead of the traditional canadian. also with the depression raging this new govn't see a strong navy as way to increase employment. So far US carriers seem to be the best option and with maye French battleships to support them. With carriers come fighters to stock them, and this would also to be open to the best design. With navy in control of choices and the planes.

 

Training crews would take time, but Canada does the experience of WW1. And the plan would be to get some training for both officers and crews in either the US or British navies.

Edited September 1, 2005 by hammerlock

[EchoFiveMike]

Buy American, the Brits are much more prone to confiscate foreign construction, as evidenced by their WWI actions taking the Erin, the Agincourt and others. S/F.....Ken M

[Daniel Papp]

Start building the fleet a bit earlier, say, 1930. Thw WT had specific clauses on export-build ships: battleships within treaty limits, CVs under 27000t. This way, you have five nations (US, UK, Italy, Japan, France) competing for your order, willing to try out their newest battleship designs. Then decide, what do you want, and how much money you could spare.

The Brits have eight decent 15" dual turrets lying around, using them no one could beat their prices by a wide margin.

 

Or why not buy used dreadnoughts (if it is around 1930)?

THe Brits still have a decomissioned Tiger BC (8x13.5) and four Iron Dukes (10x13.5"), they would be more than happy to refit and sell them. US have North Dakota, Utah and Florida that would be stricken soon.

[Rick]

I think you deed to decide who is your enemy and design your Navy to meet that threat. During that time frame money would probably be scarce and the main world threats would be, at that time: Italy and Japan, followed by a maybe Germany. I am trying to eliminate 21 century hindsight here.

I would send most of my most observant offficers and senior petty officers to the U.S., U.K. and Germany. These have been the most successfull maritime nations and contestants in the latest big war. I include Germany for her submarine technology and engineering abilities. Since it is the crew who makes the Navy, I would concentrate my resources on training gleamed from those above mentioned nations. Since I am just starting my Navy, I would begin with defending my coast rather than thinking of invading another. I would concentrate on the shore-based single engine airplane under Naval control. Gen. Mitchell has already demonstrated the potential of the airplane vs the ship with his "rigged" tests. Airplane and their logistics are cheaper and easier to deal with than large naval vessels and their logistics. With limited manpower and money the single engine fighter and attack airplane would be cheaper to buy and maintain. In 1937 the Swordfish entered service, from my understanding a stable and relatively easy plane to fly. I would purchase this plane along with the Curtiss F8c Helldiver, an already proven dive bomber with the U.S.M.C. Since you can't destroy what you can't find, I would purchase multi engine aircraft for recon. I would also supplament my fishing and merchant marine with radios and a trained operator for surveillance. Since it would fool-hardy to contest the big boys and thier large shlps my strategy would be: the airplane, air field dispersion, camouflage and repair, mines and the smaller type submarines. I understand that coastal submarines did not do as well as hoped for in W.W.2, but in the mid 1930's this was not apparent. Also, the traing and experience with the advanced technology submarines bring would help overall with my engineering and coastal surveys that my nation would need.

As KingSargent has pointed out, Great Britain had many "gently used" destroyers available. Since DD's are jack-of-all-trade warships this would give my flegling Navy the potential for a good bang for the buck. I would also purchase a vessel or two for training and two for testing equipment from other nations.

[TheSilentType]

If there had been foreign battleships being built in US yards on Dec. 7th 1941 I really doubt that they wouldn't have been pressed into US Navy service.

 

Buy American, the Brits are much more prone to confiscate foreign construction, as evidenced by their WWI actions taking the Erin, the Agincourt and others.  S/F.....Ken M

215412[/snapback]

[FormerBlue]

If there had been foreign battleships being built in US yards on Dec. 7th 1941 I really doubt that they wouldn't have been pressed into US Navy service.

215760[/snapback]

Ah but that still gives you 2 years after the Brits get involved in France.

 

Don't buy ships. Buy gear. Build.

[KingSargent]

If there had been foreign battleships being built in US yards on Dec. 7th 1941 I really doubt that they wouldn't have been pressed into US Navy service.

215760[/snapback]

Depends on who they are being built for. If it's for Canada, I doubt they'd be snatched. If it was for Mexico, they probably would be.

[p620346]

Any mix & match of inch/foot and metric designs will make for a logistical nightmare. Although both the US & UK used inch/foot measurements, during WW II there were still problems with the differences between the US standard and British Wintworth pitch on screw threads

[R011]

To fill out the inform in more let say the country in question is canada. 

215397[/snapback]

The pre war RCN would be hard pressed to build up to a battle fleet, nor do we really need one unless we've cut ties with the UK and the US turns hostile.

 

The ties with the UK at this time are more than just a "colonial mindset". They're a major trading partner and we have very close political and emotional ties. When the UK goes to war in 1939, we're going to follow. This means we'll be operating with the RN from the beginning. The RCN at this time is RN trained using RN equipment, RN manuals, and RN doctrine. I see little to be gained by wasting that. Nor do I see much reasn for the US to assist us at this time.

 

Building the "Sheepdog Navy" of WWII proved to be almost too much for us. I'd need to look up GDP for that period, but Is suspect its no better than a tenth that of the US We'd be lucky to afford two CV task forces, which wouldn't be enough to do much against the IJN, let alone the USN or RN, though might be useful against individual German surface raiders. Given that in the last war, they stayed clear of Canadian waters and were readily handled by the RN, we can leave that to them.

 

Rather than a snack for an IJN CV task force, the 1935-37 RCN plan should look rather similar to the 1940-45 RCN in concept, though smaller. Concentrate on ASW. We need a class of sea-going escorts like the later war-built frigates, backed up with some good general purpose destroyers - historically we got Tribals. The first few can be UK built, but we should be building our own DD's and FF's by 1939. We're going to be operating with the RN and dependent on them for technical assistance, so it makes sense to buy British at this time, and cost is very much a factor. The inferior (to the US) British AAW suites will make less difference in the North Atlantic than eslewhere, so it shouldn't hurt us much. It didn't historically at least.

 

If we have the foresight, a pair of light ASW carriers capable of handling the next generation or so of aircraft (like TBF's) would be very useful - something like the later Majestics. I don't know, though, if they fit into ASW doctrine at the time, and note that as part of the British Empire, we're still governed by the limitations treaties.

 

If we need prestige ships, we can always get a pair of Town class CL's, but remember, there was a good reason we dumped the RCN's war-built CL's post war.

[hammerlock]

"The pre war RCN would be hard pressed to build up to a battle fleet, nor do we really need one unless we've cut ties with the UK and the US turns hostile"

 

That is mind set that iin set up were trying to get away from. being good allies to both teh US and the Uk doesn't mean Canada should just sit back let someone else do the spending and the war. although its not surprising as that is the current mind of Government and Liberal party for most the cold war...

 

You do make some good points canada is very much linked to the UK in all matter of defence in the 1930's, and part of thos what if.. is getting Canada away from these linking making canada more independent; having a strong navy is more than ASW is part of that. the canadian econemy is more than able to support a strong navy in the 1930's just as it is able to do today given the will the spend money.

 

Staying with british designs does work, but that also links the RCN to british policies and british needs, not Canadian needs. So mixing the fleet makes is a good idea. british destroyers and frigates at first working to have them built here and then designed here. And US designed and carriers and support ships, again with the goal of being being able to build as much as possible here as time goes on.

 

Given canada's traditional role of support for the UK and letting our allies do all the work will be the hardest part to over come. Histotrically canadians feel little need to spend any money on defence as we feel safe in our of North American, but that is one the one of things that this what if wants to change. Building closer ties with US will help, but so will having teams out in Germany and France, putting it all together to do it the canadian way.

[KingSargent]

If we are talking about Canada, I think a good option for them would be to concentrate on ASW, with at least one CVTF for serious work. The British were always sure that the submarine would be outlawed "next time" in their perennial round of disarmament treaties, so they neglected ASW after they got ASDIC to work. As CW partners, Canada would have access to the "Squid-like" ASW gadgetry that was being built in 1918, but forgotten when the war ended. The RCN had some DDs, and I think they should have been fitted with DP and AA guns and ASW gear, boiler power halved for better range. The 5"/38 would be rather hard to get as the USN hung onto them like glue. However as a CW member, the British MkXIX twin 4" mount would be available, and that was probably the second best DP gun after the 5"/38. Do a Long Range escort fit on the few DDs, give them two MkXIXs, two multiple Bofors, four TT and cram as much ASW in as you can.

 

I am still partial to them getting at least one NN CV, so the CW can have at least one CV worth having.... If we're going for the 4" (more realistic than prying 5"/38s from the USN) option, I'd put a MkXIX in each of the four Yorktown classes 5" sponsons, and a quad Bofors. I'd put a MkXIX at either end of the island, again with Bofors mounts. Fit more Bofors along the sides of the FD. I'd put a hurricane bow on it. Put in the stoutest catapults you can find.

 

For the heavy gun ship, a possibility is Repulse. She could be modernized along the lines of Renown to be a fast CV escort. Of course major rebuilds are about as expensive as a new ship, so a French Dunkerque (named Quebec of course ) might be better if you can get the French to build you one. I'd put US high pressure steam propulsion in it.

 

Get those geared turbine installations I mentioned and use them to power ships. Concentrate on CVE types along the lines of the Sangamon ex-tankers. These can still be used as oilers and could fuel the smaller ships of an escort group. The escorts should be on the lines of the RN's Black Swan class sloops. A basic group could be one CVE/oiler, one of the LREd DDs, and six sloops.

 

I don't know if the RCN would have been stuck like the RN was with RAF duds, but I'd like to have as much of the RCAF be carrier qualified and trained for dive-bombing as possible. The Canadians were already building Blackburn Sharks, those will do for torpedo-bombers until a new monoplane comes along.

 

For new DDs, I'd get US built for more range than the RN DDs. Something like a Sims with three MkXIXs and some Bofors instead of the 5"/38s.

 

Again as CW member, it might make some sense to have a couple of Dido CLAAs to go with the CV. Rather than the Dido design*, I'd go with the original Arethusa class hull, replace the three 6" turrets with 5.25"s and add a fourth turret where the Arethusa kept her 4" AA - superfiring over Y turret. Squeeze in Bofors, and try to get a US DP FCS.

 

*The three turrets forward were too heavy for Didos. The successor class Black Prince dropped bqack to eight guns, and several Didos carried eight instead of ten.

[R011]

In 1935, the likely war of which you write would be between the old Entente Powers and Nazi Germany. The US at this time looked most likely to be neutral, or at best, enter several years late. This means we're British allies right from the start.

 

Given our GDP and population,about a fifth or less of the UK, we'd be doing very well to proportionately match their building at this time. They laid down (working from memory here) about five fast battleships, three carriers, and a dozen cruisers as well as a anumber od smaller ships. It sounds as if you want canad to match the building progarm of a power many times our size. I don't think so.

 

Navies do not look the way they do because there's a "proper" form to a navy. They reflect a nation's doctrines, roles, and threats.

 

What's the threat to Canada? Not the German surface fleet. They'll be lucky to get raiders out of the North Sea. They didn't get any major units out last time. The IJN? If they come for us,we're screwed unless we have major US or UK support. That support would have to be so major that we'd be junior partners at best.

 

What we need to do, is keep the SLOC's between Canada and Europe open. The threat to that will, as in 1914-18, be

U-boats. A battleship that uses up the tonnage, money, and crew of twenty ASW frigates is not our best buy, even if we were allowed to do it. Finding a niche and filling it well is not letting our allies down. They needed the RCN in WWII as an ASW force. Less ASW so we could have a prestige force of fleet carriers would not help the war effort.

 

The naval limitations treaties prohibit the signatories (i.e.anyone who can build capital ships and carriers) from building them for non-signatories. This means that if we get them built for us, they'll have to come from someone's allotment. That would be the British Empire's. There is no way the RN will give up a battleship and carrier or two to the RCN without demanding complete operational control. As they're already going to fund them from British taxpayer's pocket,we might as well let them do it and spend our resources on things we can control ourselves. Something similar also applies to cruisers. The British Empire as a whole had a tonnage allotment. The RN will want a substantial amount of operational control before they give us cruisers they could be operating themselves.

 

The US was not then in the business of traiing foreign, and potentially combatant, forces. This is not the time of MDAP or the Schoolof the Americas. You can forget about them training us. This leaves the RN as the only force who can and will. The RN also is the agency that already has a world-wide wartime shipping plan into which we, as junior partners, would need to fit. All that would lead us to closer integration with the UK whether we want it or not.

 

As we're buying off the shelf, and we need the seller to do the training and support, that all leads us to buying British, even before we consider that our naval cadre is already British trained.

Edited September 2, 2005 by R011

[swerve]

Given our GDP and population,about a fifth or less of the UK,

 

Population 1936

 

UK 47.1 mn

Canada 11.2 mn

 

Canadian GDP per head was a little less than the UKs at the time, the depression having hit Canada very hard, & the UK much less.

[R011]

Population 1936

 

UK        47.1 mn

Canada 11.2 mn

 

Canadian GDP per head was a little less than the UKs at the time, the depression having hit Canada very hard, & the UK much less.

215925[/snapback]

Thanks.So that's actually a just under a quarter the population and probably just over a fifth the GDP. Still won't buy four fleet carriers with capital ship escorts. One or two still looks to be the best bet.

[hammerlock]

I see no reason to allow the UK to have complete control of any carrier or battleship,or for that matter make any command decission in the RCN, so if they demand it, then we look else where.France, Italy is might be willing sell use the RCN one or build one, for the cash. They are doing a re-building at this time, could use the money. It would make it harder as they would be metric, but worth price for RCN control.

 

"What's the threat to Canada? Not the German surface fleet. They'll be lucky to get raiders out of the North Sea. They didn't get any major units out last time. The IJN? If they come for us,we're screwed unless we have major US or UK support. That support would have to be so major that we'd be junior partners at best."

 

Again this why we would be changing that, looking at the world as a whole rather than what threaten us or our coast line. It's always been a problem with canada that because we feel we have no threats we won't perpare or spend the money. Look at the end of cold war for eg. As soon as it was clear that the Soviet Union was no longer to invade the west.. we packed up and left and down sized. Then when the govn't to change to anti-military one, they did a hack job to CF. Canadian have traditionally not really cared about the Military, and part of the real as i see it is becuase we never keep a peacetime. There is never any thing to respect but a past war record. And in this what if the goal is to create a standing force a strong navy that is always there, for any threat, I would also do teh same the for army and RCAF. Having the RCAF train for carrier work is a good idea, but I see it as more of a an elite wing.

 

Having a strong AWS fleet is a good thing, but it should be part of stronger force able to meet many threats not just a U-boat one. If four carriers are too expenive at first then one per coast is fine, this a slow build up and maybe starting in 1935 isn't early enough. starting in 1930 with AWS and then after 5 years of build up working to the carrier groups. also with 10 years of build up it will allow canada to have an independent Navy. Yes the RCN would work with the RN and be trained by them, but again the goal is to be RCN, just not a few ships in the RN. The RCN would still be small, this is not a huge fleet; but on the other hand it is more than just AWS fleet or a niche. As I believe canada can do better than that.

[swerve]

I see no reason to allow the UK to have complete control of any carrier or battleship,or for that matter make any command decission in the RCN, so if they demand it, then we look else where.France,  Italy is might be willing sell use the RCN one or build one, for the cash.  They are doing a re-building at this time, could use the money.  It would make it harder as they would be metric, but worth price for RCN control.

 

I think you missed something a while back: they can't sell you any aircraft carriers or battleships. They've signed a treaty under which they've pledged not to build capital ships for other countries. Cruisers, destroyers, etc - fine. But no nice shiny new carriers or battleships.

 

If you want new carriers or battleships you have to build your own. Not easy.

 

I don't know what the treaty said about selling off old ships. You might be able to buy some old battleships. You can certainly buy old destroyers, many of which, as has been said, are available, in good condition, & not that old, & you can buy any old ships for scrapping, & re-use any parts which are sound. But the main thrust of your proposal is a bit like Canada today trying to buy SSBNs, complete with missiles & warheads, from the USA, Russia or France. They won't sell 'em.

[R011]

I don't know what the treaty said about selling off old ships.

216139[/snapback]

Not allowed either.

[R011]

we feel we have no threats we won't perpare or spend the money.

216067[/snapback]

If we have no threats, then WTF would we spend any money?

 

As it happens, there is an emerging threat to the wortld in 1935 - the one I mentioned. We will be on the same side as the UK and the German threat woll manisfest itself in the form of U-boats. Given that the British have a trained navy at least ften times larger, the world-wide shipping and convoy plans and staff infrastructure, we'll end up reporting to an RN admiral no matter what we want or we'll be simply a big piece of grit in the war effort.

 

Quite frankly, ten Black Swan sloops are far more useful than a new battleship - that no one can build for your navy anyway.

Look at the end of cold war for eg. As soon as it was clear that the Soviet Union was no longer to invade the west.. we packed up and left and down sized. Then when the govn't to change to anti-military one, they did a hack job to CF.

In fact, we did have a threats and potential threats that were ignored. We could easily use a navy twice the size as we have now, but we stil do not need SSBN's or CVBG's. What we need most are general purpose escorts, the modern equivalent of the minesweepers, sloops, and destroyers of the 1930's. Edited September 2, 2005 by R011