Bruships 160: Money for Kallax, Book Space ain’t Free! Naval History Questions & Chat...

J. R. Hill's Air Defence at Sea is recommended for its long view of naval air-defence missile development.

Historically distinctive ships and complete class representation take priority, because preservation value differs from wartime effectiveness.

France is the strongest candidate, with Turkey and Japan plausible in more specialized scenarios; the Netherlands would gain more from a light fleet carrier.

Britain would probably evaluate them itself, with American cooperation rather than simply surrendering the opportunity to inspect them.

They were capable and stable, but their rotor wash created distinctive challenges for dipping sonar and ASW operations.

They were effectively more capable convoy escorts, intended for demanding and higher-threat routes rather than basic escort work.

A work known to him as The Rebirth of the French Navy is recommended cautiously, pending confirmation of its published title and language editions.

Stabilized rockets and VT proximity fuzes would turn a proposed improvement to the naval Unrotated Projectile into something close to Britain's land-based Z Battery.

They could make Jutland far more damaging for Germany and accelerate British fast-battleship development after the war.

The choices favour HMS Nubian and distinctive Spanish ironclad or battleship designs that no longer survive.

They would generally be worse: the gun was useful in some roles, but 6-inch weapons better suited the cruiser fights the Royal Navy expected.

The usual standard was for the intact armored citadel to provide sufficient buoyancy; a half-citadel standard was exceptionally demanding.

The guns would be reduced or balanced with a large VLS fit; the ship could be useful, but not at the expense of broader naval force structure.

Alaska wins decisively through modern fire control, speed, rate of fire and protection.

Improved flaps and dive-braking features are plausible, but watertight aircraft compartments are not.

The preferred engine depended on availability, competing demand and whether enough units could be produced.

Probably in the Far East, where its speed and heavy armament would make it a valuable independent asset.

The five-inch class is the preferred answer, with 130 mm systems broadly in the same bracket.

No. The cruiser itself would be a uniquely valuable mobile deterrent and would not sensibly be stripped for static defence.

No. Its propulsion, airframe and handling risks make it a particularly unsuitable carrier concept.

A contract could help, but a separate production base and supply chain would matter more than a paper order alone.

They were formidable one-on-one against most opponents, but British numbers and the best British classes limited that advantage.

Probably never: their close-shore mission, port access needs and limited propulsion benefit make nuclear power unattractive.

Probably, although a group of destroyers could also overwhelm it and Britain would not insist on a one-for-one fight.

That is too cynical: the war denied them many of the opportunities their design and prewar plans anticipated.

It could speed firing and make autoloading more feasible, but practical naval reliability would remain the decisive hurdle.

No. A Brooklyn-like five-triple arrangement should work, while the proposed quadruple turrets posed the greater difficulty.

The design could become more workable, but the larger effect would be a fleet-wide British commitment to an improved 15-inch standard.

France would reject it as a fundamental security threat, making treaty collapse and a wider crisis likely.

Possibly, but it needs new ship layouts and safer transfer systems because missiles are far more delicate than shell ammunition.

A side discussion connects the Ticonderoga class's uncomfortable combat-information-center motion with its destroyer-leader origins and cruiser designation.

They would be exceptionally powerful destroyers and could devastate German surface forces at that level.

The label is retrospective; the République and Liberté classes stand out as the ships that restored a modern French battle line.

Spent containers are comparatively simple; loaded missile canisters demand careful, calm pier-side handling.

Quite possibly, because after turrets could be replaced by missiles while nine forward 6-inch guns remained useful.

Because Bismarck used distributed armor rather than all-or-nothing protection, extending the armored portion of the hull.

Yes, but even normalized figures remain approximate because official peacetime limits may not represent emergency wartime performance.

Yes. They would be useful quicker-to-build wartime versions of the same broad cruiser concept.

Not directly. The deck responds mainly to higher landing speeds, which could arise from twin-engined aircraft as well as jets.

Britain would gain some air-defence depth and face a wider North Sea, while barriers and aircraft-range requirements would become more demanding.

Its primary role is strategic air warfare and airspace control, distinct from the aviation organic to armies and navies.

It shows interest in remote defensive guns, but the concept was broadly standard for the period rather than uniquely naval.

It is a capable small carrier model for Harrier-sized aircraft and helicopters when a navy needs aviation without a full-sized carrier budget.

He would likely advance, but a senior battlefleet or squadron role is more plausible than an automatic battlecruiser command.

Comparison is possible, but contrast is more useful because the forces, technology and doctrine were fundamentally different.

They would use them as valuable modern destroyers, though local strategy and political disruption would shape their employment.

They would give British carriers much stronger early fighter defence, especially by improving interception and strike disruption.

No. The Victor proposal is tied to prestige, while Canberras were the intended nuclear-delivery aircraft.

Yes, and the large totals also reflected the aircraft reserves expected for an invasion of Japan.

All carriers were in view, with extra aircraft held ashore to replace losses and sustain carrier air groups.

Tremendously; additional allied tankers would add useful shared refuelling capacity.

No. Its crew arrangement is judged poorly suited to electronic warfare compared with the Prowler or Growler approach.

No; it would chiefly have replaced earlier A-6 Intruders as the Navy's strike aircraft.

There was no single idea; the workable twin mounting generated numerous Army and Navy proposals, so the exact variant must be specified.

They had become old and troublesome after serving their purpose as a temporary expansion of the Japanese fleet.

It allowed 35 percent of Britain's declared tonnage in the relevant naval categories, subject to the difference between declarations and reality.

It can fit the game scenario, but real Japan would more likely seek domestic licensed production than buy a Canadian fighter outright.

Their hostility might have escalated into civil war before administrative questions such as air-force naming were resolved.

They would not need D names; Bellerophon, Temeraire and Superb are plausible because those names went to the closely related successors.

Pearl Harbor could be attacked in darkness instead of waiting for morning, making the initial defence still more difficult.

No, not as a general design feature.

It could retain industrial capacity and leave treaty powers with more modern fleets, but the result depends on the exact permitted build rate.

Admiral and battle names are the most plausible, with Nelson and Rodney likely inherited from a prior planned class rather than saint names.