James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608 
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Oct 21, 2018 19:17:03 GMT
I always marvel at the naval aviation force that the Soviets built with those fantastic-looking bombers and recon aircraft: the Badgers, Blinders, Backfires and Bears. These were all Air Force planes but had a naval aviation mission. The Soviets had them in the place of carriers... yeah I know they built a few little ones but it seems like a token effort in comparison.
Which other nation could have built such a force? Not operated Soviet ones, but fielded their own in place of a carrier force? Any Chinese force would I think be Soviet-built aircraft so they are out. Could Britain have instead of a real blue-water navy? Could a surviving Nazi regime have them alongside a few token carriers?
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Oct 21, 2018 19:20:55 GMT
I always marvel at the naval aviation force that the Soviets built with those fantastic-looking bombers and recon aircraft: the Badgers, Blinders, Backfires and Bears. These were all Air Force planes but had a naval aviation mission. The Soviets had them in the place of carriers... yeah I know they built a few little ones but it seems like a token effort in comparison. Which other nation could have built such a force? Not operated Soviet ones, but fielded their own in place of a carrier force? Any Chinese force would I think be Soviet-built aircraft so they are out. Could Britain have instead of a real blue-water navy? Could a surviving Nazi regime have them alongside a few token carriers? What bombers would the British operate and would they be operated by the RAF ore Fleet Air Arm. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Oct 21, 2018 20:09:35 GMT
I am not sure on either to be honest. Possibly the aircraft might be different versions of the V-bombers. For the service: either, maybe the RAF if the Royal Navy is so weak yet then again the FAA if they don't have a surface fleet?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,856
Likes: 13,237
|
Post by stevep on Oct 21, 2018 21:56:01 GMT
James
One problem with Britain doing something like this is that the sort of naval air arm the Soviets had - and probably any one where its the major force for influencing sea lanes - is that its very much a sea denial force. Britain, while it has the economy and will needs a sea control force to protect the important trade links and colonies so such a method is only of limited use for Britain. Of course with control of quite a lot of islands and bases around the world it could be very powerful at inflicting damage on someone else's navy or merchant marine but it can't be used to blockade an enemy [at least unless Britain went the route of the Germans with U boats] or protect Britain's own trade routes.
Possibly a better bet might be a Germany that won either world war and dominates Europe and neighbouring areas but, possibly with an unfriendly Russia to its east and other countries restless under its domination has to commit so much to its army that it can't challenge the great naval powers. Or that has possibly reduced Britain to a 2ndry power at best but faces a cold war type situation with the US. Like Russia it might find naval air power a good way of protecting the region under its control from US intervention rather than seeking to match it ship for ship.
Basically, like the U boats, I see this approach as the best route for a great power who can't match its naval rivals 1-1 but wishes to restrict their ability to wage war against them. Either by forcing their surrender if their vulnerable to a successful campaign [as Britain might be] or preventing them from interfering in their core territories. Another option might be China in the near future, or if it emerged as the primary world military power then the US might end up, a couple of generations down the line, taking such an approach against a dominant China.
Steve
|
|
raunchel
Commander
Posts: 1,795 
Likes: 1,182
|
Post by raunchel on Oct 22, 2018 18:57:10 GMT
You basically need a country that isn't too dependent on the sea lanes but that still has to deal with potential naval enemies. A victorious Nazi Germany might qualify, but the Imperial Germans wouldn't necessarily. They would have sufficient strength and the like to maintain a surface fleet.
So, I would look somewhere else. Perhaps a more capable India or the like could do it, if it felt threatened by naval (Western) powers. But I guess that that takes some pretty major changes (and no Nehru).
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Oct 22, 2018 19:42:08 GMT
Britain seems out, so its a surviving Nazi Germany or maybe India with a big naval bomber force then.
|
|
|
|
Post by riggerrob on Sept 18, 2020 18:15:16 GMT
Many British colonies had excuses to build large naval air fleets. If the UK is still impoverished after WW2, she could try to fob off naval missions to Canada, Australia and South Africa. Both Canada and Australia are thinly populated with vast coast lines. The cheapest way to patrol those long coastlines is maritime patrol aircraft. Canadair built the specialized Argus MPA. South Africa operated a fleet of Shackeltons for many years.
Shackletons patrolled strategic sea lanes off the Cape of Good Hope. Canada could control sea lanes around North America and maybe the Greenland, Iceland, Norway Gap. A loyal Singapore could patrol the Straits of Mallacca. A friendly Yemen could patrol the entrance to the Red Sea. A friendly United Arab Emirates patrol the Straits of Hormuz, etc.
Also consider if NATO fobbed off the North Atlantic convoy escort role to the Royal Canadian Navy during the Cold War. During the Cold War, Canada traded butter for British aircraft and ships. Without that trade agreement, the Royal Canadian Navy would have switched to American-pattern aircraft a decade earlier.
|
|
archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Sept 18, 2020 18:21:35 GMT
Vulcans and Victors had maritime Reconnaissance variants (MR.2). Had France got nuclear weapons earlier, and bought V-bombers... A surprising number of states got Tu-16s en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-16#Former_operatorsMaybe Boeing could try a similar approach with all those B-47s that went into storage from 1960.They build 2000 of them.
That link says a whopping THOUSAND were in storage in 1966 !
Maybe if the soviets were more agressive at sea, and thus "slow" Navy P-2 / P-3 become too vulnerables... |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 18, 2020 18:36:54 GMT
Vulcans and Victors had maritime Reconnaissance variants (MR.2). Had France got nuclear weapons earlier, and bought V-bombers... A surprising number of states got Tu-16s en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-16#Former_operatorsMaybe Boeing could try a similar approach with all those B-47s that went into storage from 1960.They build 2000 of them. That link says a whopping THOUSAND were in storage in 1966 !
Maybe if the soviets were more agressive at sea, and thus "slow" Navy P-2 / P-3 become too vulnerables... So how would a US Naval Air Arm look like modeled after the Soviets with their longe range bombers. |
|
archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Sept 19, 2020 6:02:27 GMT
The US Navy would really, really hate it. Which has just reminded me, they had their own variant of it. The Seaplane Striking Force. warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/11/01/seaplane-striking-force/That would have been completely awesome. The SeaMaster was such an amazing aircraft.
And in the role of the Oscar subs throwing antiship and cruise missiles, they had the Regulus and Regulus II submarines and also some surface ships.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 19, 2020 6:06:11 GMT
The US Navy would really, really hate it. Which has just reminded me, they had their own variant of it. The US Navy would hate it but I would love it, but doubt we would see some bombers like the B-52 in service with a US Naval Air Arm. |
|
archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Sept 19, 2020 13:22:56 GMT
Nah, forget it. Martin P-6M Seamaster was the USN very own atempt as a B-47 strategic bomber.
While the Regulus and Regulus II submarines and ships could play the role of their Soviet counterparts.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 19, 2020 19:39:16 GMT
Nah, forget it. Martin P-6M Seamaster was the USN very own atempt as a B-47 strategic bomber. While the Regulus and Regulus II submarines and ships could play the role of their Soviet counterparts. While this looks badass i was more thinking of heavy bombers carying a lot of anti ship missiles.  |
|
archibald
Ensign
The PRC was standing on the edge of an abyss. And Mao said "let's make a Great Leap Forward"
Posts: 359
Likes: 364
|
Post by archibald on Sept 19, 2020 19:54:50 GMT
It had a bomb bay, but (you guess) it had some difficulties with the seals, it was a little wet...
B-47 had a huge cruise missile called Rascal, which was cancelled.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 68,033
Likes: 49,431
|
Post by lordroel on Sept 19, 2020 20:07:46 GMT
It had a bomb bay, but (you guess) it had some difficulties with the seals, it was a little wet... B-47 had a huge cruise missile called Rascal, which was cancelled. You mean this big boy archibald, the GAM-63 RASCAL, it looks big.  And still looks big under a modified B-47B.  But reading it the RASCAL nuclear armed standoff missile, not very handy if you want to only sink ships but not start a global nuclear war. |
|
