[Permanent Secretary] One might even call it a bold and courageous decision...
'There's a novel idea loose somewhere in the building...'
'Ohh ... gosh, so, what do we do.'
'It must be found and stopped immediately.'
'Right ... yes ... err, Sir, do you suppose any of the staff know what a novel idea sounds like...?'
'You're right. We must stop everything!'
Curiosity, why didn't they try to extend the flight deck over the turrets? Concerns over blast damage? IIRC the OTL Akagi and Furious had the flight deck supported by pillars up to the actual bow. That would allow the cruiser- carrier to have a longer flight deck which works better for aviation operations. It would also help future proof it against the likelihood of heavier aircraft that need longer take-off rolls.

The main problem is that the turrets would have restricted elevation, but that shouldn't be a disqualifier unless they are really counting on 45 degree or higher elevation for AA use. If the blast is a real problem, they could use a grid structure for the deck which ould allow most of the blast to pass through the deck.
To keep the arcs clear, both for normal combat and in case the deck is damaged in action (and yes, that's a bit of an admission that guns and carriers don't mix)

Pegasus' flight deck isn't too bad for 1923, but I'm sure they'll soon wish it was longer. I can see it being given extensions fore and aft fairly quickly, perhaps covering B and X turrets, but not interfering with their guns.
I also suspect she'll either be a 'big cruiser with some aircraft capability' or converted to a proper carrier by the mid-30s
I agree they are doing it for the weight savings, but the more prudent approach would be to try it on one or two ships first and see if it works, before building five at once. It is roughly like the gamble Churchill took with the Queen Elizabeths combining oil-fired turbines and 15-inch guns for the first time in one ship and building five of them at once. When it works its great. If it doesn't work, you have two to five times the problems to fix.
It's not as radical as perhaps it sounds. The first all-welded ship was launched in 1920 (it wasn't a warship though).
There's no welding in the hull, or on any structural members, it's only light weather-proof plating on superstructures. Things like ventilators, spray shields, gangways and the shelter deck itself (but not what supports it).
The advantage is weight saving in one of the most important areas - high up in the ship.
Damage there isn't going to affect the operation of the ship very much, and if it goes wrong, all of that can easily be riveted or reinforced.
My guess is that the thinking is more like...
1. We want to order all five in order to keep yards busy and employed
2. The weight calculations require welding to work so we need to use it on all of them
3. Welding is only being used on non-load bearing structures so even if it's not as good as advertised then it still shouldn't affect the structural integrity of the ship.
4. If there is a problem we can always do a refit and possibly use that to justify other changes.
Spot on ... in particular, 4 might provide a useful justification.
I suspect that's their thinking but that's a major departure from OTL and really "courageous".
Then you try it with a destroyer first, like they did with high pressure boilers.
True, I suspect that absent pressures to conform to the treaty they wouldn't be quite as "courageous".
They did it was in ‘the impossible ship’ with one of the 3 test destroyers
Or maybe the welding is publicised and acknowledged to bring the weight down, maybe even used in the first one to be launched. The other four, however, are merely declared to have the same welding, but what no one checks can’t be disproven...

Arguably the most revolutionary thing I've proposed so far is the use of Aluminum/canvas braided wiring. The RN didn't adopt non-lead covered wiring until the late 30s.
As CV(N)-6 points, out in the story they're testing the 300-psi/600F machinery on destroyers first, so they will at least know how they handle at sea and what the maintenance issues are before these ships are completed.

They are really squeezing this design hard, but I think I've only used 'good, modern designs for 1925' rather than anything that's trying to be '30s tech in the '20s.
Some of it's happening a year or so sooner than reality, but the RN needs to resume destroyer construction, so the experimental ones came earlier, and there's more money floating about, hence the ability to experiment a bit more.

More generally, there's a little more focus on engineering, as the shipbuilding industry isn't suffering quite the same slump. There's also no RAF, meaning that the Navy likely still has some of the more technically-minded men who transferred in reality (and of course that's likely to affect British naval aviation too).

Deleted member 94680

It has precedent, but Imperious or Immortal should work just as fine since French names aren't as popular.

It’s an existing name for a RN vessel whereas Imperious or Immortal are not. I can see imperious rather than the French spelling (the French are still allies, remember) but Immortal seems a... arrogant name to use for a vessel that could well be sunk.
It has precedent, but Imperious or Immortal should work just as fine since French names aren't as popular.
I do hope not, I'm holding out for the next Nelson-class (after Trafalgar) to be Temeraire.

sts-200 is teasing us here - I'm dying to see which rabbits his RN designers have pulled out of which hats, even if I suspect the ship they're going for is genuinely impossible.

Something else to think about - the Japanese Myoko-class CAs, which were partly responsible for setting the whole BCL-rush off, had a rated speed of 36 knots! The original Omahas were rated at 35kt, though the Newarks apparently lost a knot or two in the conversion to 8". The RN E-class are good for 33, as is Eendracht, while the new Londons are built for 32.5 (OTLs Pensacolas and Northamptons were similar). What this adds up to is that if you want to go hunting modern cruisers, a mere 30-31 knots isn't going to be enough. You need 32-33, preferably 35, and that's where the tonnage limits really start to bite as exponential power curves set in.

Of course, if your BCL is operating in the heavy-scout role and is only interested in driving off enemy cruisers rather than killing them, then 30-31 knots is enough to stay ahead of the fleet and run away from any current battleships. But on detached duty, if all you want to do is sail from A to B projecting a big bubble of Go Away to any lurking cruisers, then you could just make it 26 knots and save yourself the headaches.

None of admiral charles's "Gxx" designs reach 32kt, and they seem to be limited to a 9" or 10" belt and 2" decks - which won't keep out 1920's 14" shells even before you have to pare them down further to fit in yet more powerful machinery. (The deck armour is the real killer - for long range fights the deck is more important than the belt, and these BCLs certainly don't want to be going to close range against real battleships).

Now I buy the argument that a 12" (let alone 10" or 9.2") gunned BCL is useless in a fleet battle and I also buy the Mahanian follow-up that every ton you spend out of your battle fleet allocation had better go to the battle fleet. But I also buy the argument that sending an underarmoured BCL into a fleet battle is an invitation to Queen Mary-style calamities. Despite their attraction, the 23,000-ton BCL seems to be in a coffin-corner of design, where the lines marked "too slow to catch cruisers" and "too weak to fight battleships" cross in a rather unfortunate place. And it's really easy to end up doing an Alaska and coming up with something that has 75% of the cost of a "real" battlecruiser but nothing like 75% of the utility - which is something the RN really can't afford to build 5 of.
HMS Arrogant and Invincible were actually used. Coincidentally, ships using both names were sunk.
Arrogant is another name I can't stand; like Inflexible (or Terrible), it just has the wrong connotation to me.

Invincible is arguably in the same group; it's dangerously close to 'unsinkable', but despite that I like it.

Deleted member 94680

HMS Arrogant and Invincible were actually used. Coincidentally, ships using both names were sunk.

That’s a fair point.

I don’t know how much to read into the fact that Immortal was never used. Some kind of religious sensitivities at work? The RN had many years and many, many ships to work through with “acceptable” names, so I’m not sure what to read into the fact a “obvious” name was never chosen OTL.

I notice that the first Invincible was originally a French vessel L’Invicible so the name kind of “came in through the back door” as it were.
I've added a strawpoll, if anybody wants to do that sorta thing. Multiple votes are allowed!

Edit: I forgot to add HMS Truant, Spanker, Sodomite, Cockchafer, and Pansy. I have failed you, everyone. I have failed you.
Edit 2: Remember you can vote for as many as you like! I'll post a Round 2 after culling the least popular options.
Last edited: