I've never even been to the 80s.
...fair.
Theres a documentary on YouTube about this. Unfinished London, I think. Very interesting.
- 2
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I've never even been to the 80s.
...fair.
Theres a documentary on YouTube about this. Unfinished London, I think. Very interesting.
@TheButterflyComposer Heretic! You took the top of the page, now we all need to spam another page of pointless meanderings through British house design and why the QE carriers are a bad investment!
- 2
- 1
- 1
Had this not been gone and done already, I'd be sorely tempted to take the top of the page on purpose, less to spare El Pip the horror of updating so quickly and more to goad you into producing a goddamn update of your own!
Nonsense, we can be more creative than this. Perhaps a discussion of the recent US Supreme Court vote, not for any political purposes but rather to annoy El Pip by bringing up 52-48 again?
Oh yes...
- 2
- 1
You are the one with the becursed taste buds and you must enjoy what you enjoy. Hopefully one day medical science will have a cure for such terrible problems as a palate that can't appreciate proper whisky. (
)As it happens I believe the ski jump is not the limiting factor, it's the recovery of the F35B that is the slow bit, the "Rolling Vertical Landing" as opposed to a simple VTOL hover. Why do you do the rolling landing, partly because you can automate it (it is just push-button) and partly so you can bring back more stores and not have to dump them. It's a hit to sortie rate, but you can still get big packages in the air quickly you just can't recover them all at once quickly.
Which is another reason not to go for an America type design, it's just too small to have space for a rolling vertical landing and to launch aircraft. I know there is a strong American desire to have everyone just use US ship designs, but occasionally they aren't the best option.
As to cats-traps vs VSTOL, I absolutely agree the 'C' is a better aircraft, not completely sure on cheaper (sure cash price is lower, but more UK content in the 'B' so more money flows back to the UK). But it was driven by some thinking about availability and there is a logic to it. The French struggle to have the CdG available, partly because it's only a single ship but partly because of the amount of time it has to spend keeping pilots qualified on deck operations. The F35B ski ramp launch is automated as is the landing (BAe/RN started developing it for Sea Harrier) so there is nothing naval about pilot training so no need for long periods of getting pilots qualified. Which is handy as the 'surge' plans depend on deploying the RAFs land based F35s to the carriers during a crisis, which would be expensive if every RAF pilot had to be 'carried qualified' to deploy. But on a F35B they don't, because of the ski ramp and automation.
Was this 100% the best plan, for the money available it probably was. Would three proper CATOBAR carriers with say two full air wings that rotate around give more capability, absolutely. But there wasn't money for that, so here we are.
A noble effort, ruined by TBC.
I've never been to the late Victorian era, yet still get accused of being from it. Such are the vicissitudes of life.
I always am. Often harsh as well, but always fair.
We definitely need more meanderings on architecture and house design theory. Because it will not be featuring in the next chapter, well not much. Maybe a picture at most.
@Wraith11B does need more encouragement. We can goad him regardless.Had this not been gone and done already, I'd be sorely tempted to take the top of the page on purpose, less to spare El Pip the horror of updating so quickly and more to goad you into producing a goddamn update of your own!
The cursed ratio strikes again! Who will we lose this time?Nonsense, we can be more creative than this. Perhaps a discussion of the recent US Supreme Court vote, not for any political purposes but rather to annoy El Pip by bringing up 52-48 again?
By coincidence that subject is almost relevant to Butterfly (sort of). Summer of '37 saw Hugo Black get appointed to the Supreme Court, which would be the first appointment to occur in the Butterfly timespan (previous one was '32 apparently). Assuming the vacancy occurs on schedule someone needs to fill it, but I suspect die-hard New Dealer and Democrat senator Black is not getting a nomination from Landon, so there will be a different justice.
Should anyone care to speculate on who that justice may be, feel free. Convincing answers and exciting changes that would result may end up being included in the story, if the subject ever comes up. Who knows this speculation may even lure @H.Appleby and other lurkers out of silence?
- 1
- 1
- 1
I think a lot of the distaste for the compromises arises from the fact that while they may be the best carrier option available for the budget, the feeling is that for the budget they compromise the Royal Navy overall. Basically, if the UK government doesn't want to pay for a proper carrier capability they would be better served not wasting money on a compromised "best option for the budget" solution, and instead buying more of of the workhorse smaller ships.
The question of how to refight the Falklands is sort of moot: any realistic scenario that involves having to retake the islands needs to explain how the task force will deal with the force that defeated the current garrison! I wouldn't be surprised if maintaining a 5000 man garrison there is a lot cheaper than maintaining the required carrier capability to retake the islands.
- 2
- 1
Well, you can say that about lots of things...
Not through lack of trying, though.
...indeed. Maybe once Redux is done and the evidence is destroyed.
Garden cities could and should be more of a talking point. They so very nearly happened otl that perhaps a version might be built here?
Too busy stalking these days.
Queen of England and David Attenborough.
Ooh.
I shall have to find the most outrageous and dangerous lunatic I can find. Probably some anarcho-bolsivist because the mainstream facists were too powerful to be crazy in Amercia.
- 3
I think the starting point is that politicians wanted a carrier because it is perceived to carry a lot more weight and influence than a squadron of smaller ships and at the level they deal with (i.e. politicians from other nations) they are probably right. The QE / F-35B combo may be compromised compared to the platonic ideal, but it is still very capable and gives the UK capabilities that very few nations have (the CdG has half the surge airwing and being a single ship there will be times when France has no carrier operational, the Kuznetov is a half sunken burned out wreck and the various tiny F35B carriers from Italy, Spain, etc can't fit enough aircraft on to mount a large strike and run CAP).
Put it this way, if the international community decides to go off and bomb yet another 2nd rate power then the UK will have that capability and if the CdG is in refit then no-one else, bar the US, in NATO will have it. They will have to scrabble around trying to find a land base and probably begging some tanker capacity of the USAF. An independent capability is perceived to have a diplomatic and strategic value that no amount of workhorse ships can provide and it's hard to argue against that point. If you fundamentally don't believe the UK will end up in a major shooting war with a peer power, then it makes a certain amount of sense.
All that said it is clear the Navy is aware that fleet numbers have suffered and the Type 31 is an attempt to get more of the workhorse ships to meet the smaller 'presence' requirements around the West Indies, Persian Gulf and so on. The process of getting there has not been managed well and some of the mistakes have been costly, but I think by the end of the 2020s it might all work out. Given that all naval programmes go over-budget and are badly managed (look at everything the USN has built for the last few decades or the relentless clown show that is the modern German Navy) that is probably all you can ask for.
One day it may make a difference. One day.
Of course two did get built to moderate success. But the Conservatives aren't going to do it, far too much planning for their tastes, while Labour won't because the two that did get built ended up being far too middle class (too posh for 'the workers' but nowhere near posh enough for the leadership). The ideas got taken up and the new towns were fairly green. Even Milton Keynes had a surprisingly large amount of parks, gardens and greenery in between the miserable grid lines.
@Wraith11B is committed to his stalking isn't he?
This is the US supreme court. You will probably find the worst outrageous lunatics got appointed in OTL.
- 2
- 1
- 1
I do not know much about US politics at the time - all I know about Landon is he was a Southern oil man. Can’t imagine it would be hard to find someone with black gold in their veins to appoint to the Supreme Court.
But to continue to flog the CV conversation.
USMC B’s have been training on QE recently. I believe the plan is for them to regularly embark a squadron to fill out the air group.
With CATOBAR vs VSTOL - it's worth highlighting that CATOBAR would have taken much longer as it would have been unwise to build new gen carriers with steam catapults and EMALS were having some real issues while the QE’s were under construction. The C’s also took longer to get into service. Then you get into the whole mess of would it be better to have had A’s with the RAF and C’s with FAA complicating supply chains and all that.
Objectively CATOBAR with proper navalised aircraft is better but a halfway house is better than none.
Last edited:
- 1
Had this not been gone and done already, I'd be sorely tempted to take the top of the page on purpose, less to spare El Pip the horror of updating so quickly and more to goad you into producing a goddamn update of your own!
Fine, fine. I'll try and work on it a bit while in the doldrums of the midnight shift.
Always!
I'm working on it. I hear there are various brands for flavors. Perhaps one of my lady friends might take the opportunity to enlighten me in the ways of Proper Whisky.You are the one with the becursed taste buds and you must enjoy what you enjoy. Hopefully one day medical science will have a cure for such terrible problems as a palate that can't appreciate proper whisky. (
Working backwards through this: indeed, the power of the purse is both blessing and curse, but the opportunity costs between the bits probably could have shaded one way or the other. Certainly Australia, Japan and South Korea seem to be going with a mix of the A/B models (for the air force and navies respectively). But if the point is to have a unified force, is the FAA going back to the RAF or vice versa? Why have RAF forces that deploy to the carrier if that's the job of FAA?As it happens I believe the ski jump is not the limiting factor, it's the recovery of the F35B that is the slow bit, the "Rolling Vertical Landing" as opposed to a simple VTOL hover. Why do you do the rolling landing, partly because you can automate it (it is just push-button) and partly so you can bring back more stores and not have to dump them. It's a hit to sortie rate, but you can still get big packages in the air quickly you just can't recover them all at once quickly.
Which is another reason not to go for an America type design, it's just too small to have space for a rolling vertical landing and to launch aircraft. I know there is a strong American desire to have everyone just use US ship designs, but occasionally they aren't the best option.
As to cats-traps vs VSTOL, I absolutely agree the 'C' is a better aircraft, not completely sure on cheaper (sure cash price is lower, but more UK content in the 'B' so more money flows back to the UK). But it was driven by some thinking about availability and there is a logic to it. The French struggle to have the CdG available, partly because it's only a single ship but partly because of the amount of time it has to spend keeping pilots qualified on deck operations. The F35B ski ramp launch is automated as is the landing (BAe/RN started developing it for Sea Harrier) so there is nothing naval about pilot training so no need for long periods of getting pilots qualified. Which is handy as the 'surge' plans depend on deploying the RAFs land based F35s to the carriers during a crisis, which would be expensive if every RAF pilot had to be 'carried qualified' to deploy. But on a F35B they don't, because of the ski ramp and automation.
Was this 100% the best plan, for the money available it probably was. Would three proper CATOBAR carriers with say two full air wings that rotate around give more capability, absolutely. But there wasn't money for that, so here we are.
I was not aware of how the takeoff/landing cycles had been automated aboard the B version. Given that the British and the USMC are going to be cross decking their forces anyways, that's where my argument comes from: if they're cross-decking aircraft, then notionally, there should not be a problem (PFFT) getting a US flattop available to train on. I'm also worried that the QE with a ski jump can't work around refueling aircraft, which seems... short sighted.
As to the CdG, I am no expert on the French navy, I still argue that they should have joined in with the QE program, and it strikes me that the struggles to keep CdG working would be resolved if they just... I dunno... replaced it? It is 26 years old, full of bugs because of work stoppages, but I guess it's age isn't bad (a bit of a Wiki search was conducted). My other concern is that the French navy can operate E-2C Hawkeyes and C-2 Greyhounds, which would bring the capability of the AWACs to a much higher capability than the RN's CrowsNest system (which, as I recall, is much like any new system, full of bugs. Must have pinched some engineers from Paradox
), though IIRC, the RN is eyeing CV-22s from the USN to perform the COD mission. I agree that, ton for ton, the RN got a better carrier than the French got with CdG, I just worry about the range of action from small legged B models.I gather that the ship can conduct moderate (ie, CAP armed aircraft) simultaneous launch and recovery operations, if the aircraft are lightly loaded and conducting a VTOL landing. Which, thinking on this, I doubt that even the USN needs a full-on simultaneous launch and recovery capability (if the alpha strike goes out, that's it, the deck's clear until they return home...)
Guess I'll swallow the pride and alter my views... if only slightly.
- 1
- 1
Landon was a bit more than that and he has got to get his choice through a divided senate, though I don't think that Supreme Court appointments were quite as bitter back then (and there's been no shenanigans with the "illegal" New Deal legislation and FDRs threatened court packing). That said I don't really want to dig through and find a possible candidate, because it is supremely irrelevant to the actual plot. Hence my hopes to crowd-source an interesting answer, but if that fails I will probably just never speak of it again.
If you must. (
)That is my thinking on it.
Excellent. We shall see more amazing graphics demonstrating the Axis' ability to successfully club baby seals.
They would be doing God's Work if they did.
It's probably close to the RAF squadrons merging with the FAA. In theory all the F-35B could end up on the carrier at some point during a surge, but not every plane will deployed from a land base. If the refit stars align and both carriers are on operations during a major panic then all the F-35s could end up on the two carriers, leaving the Typhoons to do air defence of the UK. (The fact the RAF keep whining about wanting to buy some 'A's for part of the next tranche also convinces me the current plan has the FAA in the ascendency
)For Oz, Japan, SK and Italy that's physically impossible, so a split buy makes more sense for them. Though interestingly the Italian Air Force keeps trying to snaffle some 'B's from the navy because they will be useful for 'expeditionary warfare'. And not because they want all planes under their control, heaven forbid.
The French had similar thoughts about being able to get some time on a US flattop to help maintain skills when the CdG was in refit. That has spectacularly failed to work out for them. Almost as badly as every joint-procurement programme the French military has ever been involved in.
A minor internet miracle has occurred!
Your points are correct though. There will be issues around refuelling and range, even if some CV-22s do get procured to help with refuelling (in a dream world they'd get a large radar nailed to them as well for a better AWACS capability, but that is sadly unlikely to happen any time soon). I do get the sense that a bit more money would have yielded a substantially better outcome, but sadly that money was wasted on the inevitable incompetence that is a part of all government procurement. I'm also wary of how 'a bit' soon turns into 'a huge amount' and before you know it the second ships is cancelled and the RN ends up in a CdG situation of having only a single carrier, even if it would be a more capable cats-n-traps flattop. Having an always available 'good' capability seems infinitely better than something 'great' that's only intermittently available.
NEXT UPDATE STUFF;
There were a worrying number of creepy medals for women who had loads of children. This will not feature in the update but it
- 3
- 1
I'm up to date! One more reader signing in from NZ, @El Pip. Others have said it better than I will, but allow me to echo the praise for The Butterfly Effect - it is a truly magnificent work.
Not much to add to the ongoing carrier discussion, except to comment on the 'the US will do the heavy lifting' idea that keeps coming up. If war breaks out tomorrow then I expect they would indeed be the proverbial cavalry, but I'm not sure I'd be prepared to base my national security plans entirely around that - at least not over the long term. History suggests that the Pax Americana won't last forever, any more than the Pax Britannica or Romana did - and the current hegemon seems (at least to me) to be edging rather closer to the 'overextended and out-of-touch' stage of the Empire life-cycle than is entirely safe.
Not much to add to the ongoing carrier discussion, except to comment on the 'the US will do the heavy lifting' idea that keeps coming up. If war breaks out tomorrow then I expect they would indeed be the proverbial cavalry, but I'm not sure I'd be prepared to base my national security plans entirely around that - at least not over the long term. History suggests that the Pax Americana won't last forever, any more than the Pax Britannica or Romana did - and the current hegemon seems (at least to me) to be edging rather closer to the 'overextended and out-of-touch' stage of the Empire life-cycle than is entirely safe.
- 1
- 1
...there's a plot?
...loads? Loads of medals? A worrying number of women with loads of creepy medals. Hm. At least they aren't giving medals for babies in rape cafes.
Don't let that stop you. I started the whole thing, and I know nothing.
Though I'm begining to pick up a few things. Namely, naval combat is extremely unlikely in modern war, no body really cares about navies except the baddies (russia and China) and their ships are dreadful, France won't update their stuff for anybody, and are complaining about it, Italy has a military and apparently cares about it, the UK sort of someone ended up with an alright compromise carrier pair, but very little else, and nobody has any real idea what to do about the future or who they're going to be fighting except those nefarious 'them' we've been hearing so much about.
But if everyone is bored of that one, I have a new inflammatory conversation prompt. Aside from the election of course (I think we all know who's winning that one). I recently had a long and occasionally interesting lecture in a bar (see the warning signs) with two middle aged homosexual landlords about Margaret Thatcher and the ruination of the Conservative party after her glorious regime. Any thoughts of John major and his awful replacements? As someone whose obviously only known a poltical landscape reacting to the legacy of new Labour, this is of some interest to me.
- 2
@TheButterflyComposer My personal take on the "ruination of the conservative party" is that they have basically suffered a completion lack of leadership since Thatcher, and have been unwilling or unable to deal with internal divides for fear of letting someone else win an election.
John Major basically never dealt with the question of "Europe" within the party. The next too leaders grappled with the issue but couldn't deal with the internal fighting enough to actually appear as a credible government. Cameron simply tried to ignore it and promised a referendum on the topic if they won an election, promised to treat an advisory referendum as if it were binding, and than ran away when he lost it anyway. And the ones since? May was a brave fool for taking the post, and the current clown is best referred to as BoJo... Basically, the Conservative party was not able to deal with their internal divisions, partly because they were too scared of letting "them" win.
I must note here that I don't think the other mob are any better.
John Major basically never dealt with the question of "Europe" within the party. The next too leaders grappled with the issue but couldn't deal with the internal fighting enough to actually appear as a credible government. Cameron simply tried to ignore it and promised a referendum on the topic if they won an election, promised to treat an advisory referendum as if it were binding, and than ran away when he lost it anyway. And the ones since? May was a brave fool for taking the post, and the current clown is best referred to as BoJo... Basically, the Conservative party was not able to deal with their internal divisions, partly because they were too scared of letting "them" win.
I must note here that I don't think the other mob are any better.
- 1
- 1
A nice update with all the industrial planning wisdom we were promised and some informative discusion on the Royal Navy to boot. This reader certainly feels happy to have dropped in.
Onwards to the next update and to victory! I only hope Pip gives us a little more info on what we can expect.
Onwards to the next update and to victory! I only hope Pip gives us a little more info on what we can expect.
- 1
- 1
War never changes
I have always seen Jon Major as one of those politicians who was very technically proficient at the mechanics of politics but who was awful at conveying that in the media.
To my understanding, though I am not an expert, he managed the relation with Europe quite well and was able to pull back some of the policy drives of late Thatcherism quite neatly.
Deep divides in the Conservitive Party are not a recent thing, though the question of Europe has created strong battlelines. Only look at Thatcher and the Wet/Dry economic split in the party. It is true that Europe has brought down every Conservitive Prime Minister since Thatcher (probably could argue the war).
That is not to say, that due to how the party system works in the UK, that Labour don’t face their own deep divides re the Unions and the Parliamentary Party. In my opinion the completely different flavours of the main parties and their nuances is one of the most fascinating things about UK politics.
- 1
- 1
That is very generous of you to say. Congratulations on catching up and welcome aboard.
Obviously the Pax Americana will fall at some point and is certainly experiencing it's share of problems. But, on the basis that Russia is an unstable oil state, the EU could never muster the internal coherence to be a world power and the imbalances and demographic horrors are starting to bite in China, I get the sense the US is still in a relatively strong position (even if that just reflects the problems of others rather than any strength of their own). That said I agree it is unwise to rely too heavily on any support from that quarter.
Absolutely. If you have not been paying sufficient attention to follow it, that is on you.
Dunno what happened to that comment. But in the 30s and 40s there was quite a fashion to get all twitched about demographics and establish medals to be given to women who had loads of kids. Germany (obvs), Soviets (obvs), Italy (mildly surprising given stereotypes) and France (because of course) all had them.
Oddest demographic fact, France had endemic low birth rates since WW1 and that had reached crisis point by 1938/9. Post-war politicians take the claim for the baby-boom that ran till the 60s in France but it did not start with them. It started, oddly in 1941/42. I'm not saying I can prove France's baby boom was started entirely by German occupation soldiers, but as most French men were either dead, in POW camps or being shipped to German factories....
You do know you've got four of your own AAR threads and the whole of OT to make a mess in. Why do you have to chose to dump these flame-bate parcels here?
In fairness the first rule of politics is being able to count (the votes you have in parliament/congress/whatever, not necessarily the popular vote). You also pretty much have to believe that you will do a better job than the other lot, or what is the point of your party existing. The fact the Conservative Party has internalised these lessons so completely, and the fact Labour and the Liberals have not, explains why the Conservatives were the most successful election winning machine in the Western world in the 20th Century. This achievement says nothing about governing, implementing manifestos, if those manifestos are a good idea, or anything like that. Just that you cannot do any of those things if you are not in power and, bar brief interludes, the Conservatives understand this in a way their opponents (mostly) did not and do not.
He was actually surprisingly good with the media, the 1992 election win would not have been possible without him being such a good communicator, at least to the voting public. And on the second point he was elected as leader because the party wanted to stay in power and recognised the need to pull back some of Thatcherism or they would be kicked out. This is another reason why the Conservative party is so much more ruthless with failing leaders than Labour, they believe being in power is more important than being loyal and out of office. It doesn't always work, but you cannot fault the determination and clear-headed thinking.
Or before then with the Corn Laws in the 19th Century, Imperial Preference at the start of the 20th and there were splits brewing around nationalisation in the late 30s, as we probably shall see later in this AAR. It's not having major splits that is necessarily the problem, but how you manage them.
I've always felt the fact Labour can produce politicians who can say "There must be no compromise with the electorate", and mean it, is why they spent so long losing. There is a strong strand in that group that thinks it is better to be pure in opposition and compromised in power, which is frankly baffling to me.
Excellent.
I'm struggling to an extent on the next one, but something is coming together around population/housing/demographics. Or I will abandon the lot and dive straight into the Imperial Conference.Onwards to the next update and to victory! I only hope Pip gives us a little more info on what we can expect.
It probably should be the latter, but we will see what inspiration my muse (aided by some whisky) provides.
- 2
- 1
The Tolkien defence. Even though Tolkien himself is not guilty of it.
By long-esrablished convention, this is where everyone dumps their shit (HOI in general, but especially HOI2). Until someone actually challenged this, I imagine the convention will continue.
Besides I have elections to win and by your own arguments, that's far more important. Especially because it apparently works.
- 1
- 1
I have concluded that including anything on housing would just be random words for the sake of it. I do think it is interesting and it will be relevant at some point in the future, but it does have nothing to do with the events and issue being discussed at the Economic Conference and I would like to make a bit of progress. Admittedly that is mostly because I'm really looking forward to the bits after the Conference and not out of any actual burning desire to advance the plot, but the point still stands.
So we are off to the Imperial Economic Conference for high grand strategy and trade politics.
So we are off to the Imperial Economic Conference for high grand strategy and trade politics.
- 2
- 2
@El Pip So your argument for advancing the plot is you have lots of not plot advancing updates planned for afterwards? Sounds good!
- 3
- 2
- 2