Shipbucket

Hi Oberon_706 1) I don't think they do ? The FI will likely still have very good relations with the rest of the white Commonwealth (massive and powerful) and although they are separated out they still have easy sea links.
If the FI is awash with oil revenue all they need to do is pay a significant contribution to the RN (always desperate for cash) and they get cast iron get out of jail free card of a battle fleet/CBG. (well in public we all know how Singapore went )
on the first point re israel - the alliance is more technical and political than truly strategic. Equipment , tech and training relationships are the name of the game. not going to be coming to each others aid in time of war, simply not practical.
On the Second point - I don't necessarily agree with your logic; Falklands is an independent nation and proudly so; and as such, its navy has to (notionally at the very least, if not in fact) be able to defend it's home waters and home ports against an aggressor - it's operational significance during WW2 is much like the RAN (seen as a part of or adjunct to the RN) but thereafter operates very much independently, both in its own defensive role and as a part of the NATO alliance. Defensive treaties such as the ones with USA/Australia/UK come in to play chiefly when the nation is in direct peril, just as alliances such as ANZUS would.

2) How the 'New' FINDF ? change the LNT ? (how would they share out the CA tonnage ?) and the building capabilities of British yards ?('additional delays in build and the prioritization of Royal Navy orders' would they not be treated as part of the RN ?)
In this AU the Falklands doesn't start to establish its own navy till after the Washington Naval Treaty is enacted and is therefore not subject to it. In addition, the London Naval Treaty wasn't truly adhered to by any of the signatories, especially after Japan and Germany pulled out/ignored it in the reconstruction of their battle fleets. For any of the other nations to have adhered 100% to the LNT would have put them at a severe disadvantage in any coming conflict. Ships like the KGV class etc were really only treaty compliant on paper, and even then their compliance with the treaty limitations was debatable. Whilst i haven't written that part of the AU history yet, it's my intent that the Falklands are an independent signatory of the LNT, but, just as with Britain and America, strategic and practical realities mean that ships built after the treaty aren't always truly compliant with it.

3) Would they not just order RN type ships (I know that spoils the fun of drawing new ships ). I would think the FI would build what it was suggested to (after debating the cost) by the RN, They would want more smaller units to cover a larger area (and you can always team up to fight a large raider).
You'll note that the original Royal Navy plan was to build 7 of the York Class Heavy Cruisers, but that the conditions of the LNT, plus changes in the ethos of RN designers regarding cruisers saw 5 of the 7 ship order cancelled. My intent in this AU is that the Falklands gave the RN the chance to field more big gun cruisers under the treaty without them actually counting to the RN tonnage limits, operational practicalities of the commonwealth fleets meaning that in a large-scale war the Falklands ships would operate in RN formations anyway, being just as good as owning/operating the ships themselves.

4) you cant lay down a 10,000+ ship pre 37 ? unless you are very estranged from GB ? (WNT/LNT/LNT2).
see answers to previous points

JSB

Just noticed your cruiser, a beautiful ship, but for a 1937 ship, there are a lot of radar antenas.

Defensive treaties such as the ones with USA/Australia/UK come in to play chiefly when the nation is in direct peril, just as alliances such as ANZUS would.

My understanding of the WNT/LNT is that all the empire/dominions are included in the RN tonnage/numbers, So the ships or the RAN etc, all count as British for the purposes of the treaty.
I'm sure that all the powers will insist that the FI are included into the same total.
Without this provision the treaty is just to easy for GB to cheat as it has loads of semi independent dominions and could even subsidise selling them capital ships.(or they could have just kept HMAS Australia (1911), HMS New Zealand (1911) or even HMS Malaya )
A paraphrased quote i have heard repeated in reference to the LNT (1930 and 1937) is that "they were honored more in the breach than the adherence" - the same applies in my AU; as I've already described. Also, whilst I'm not completely certain, I'm of the understanding/opinion that the tonnage limitation 'blanket' applied over all Britain's dominions as part of the WNT was far less applicable in the 30's - for two reasons; first: nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand were far more independent in nature by this time (India being the only real part of the empire with a navy of its own that could still be classed as a 'dominion'); Second: because the main reason for the limitation blanket (restriction of number of battleships and battle cruisers) was now no longer as necessary, most of the massive fleets of BB's and BC's having been disposed of as part of the WNT in the 1920's.

I think that B only started to walk away from the treaty's in 1937 or later ie. LNT2 rather than WNT/LNT1.
That's true in a sense (RN's decision to walk away from 'Heavy Cruisers' and focus on max 6" armed ships for it's cruiser force is evidence of this, as is the decision to arm the KGV class ships with 14" main guns only), although as I've already described, they subscribed to the treaty in a very vague manner and certainly didn't cross every 'T' and dot every 'I'.
So The FI cant build CA/CLs(at least not many) till its to late as BGs yards will be to full.


I think they totally change the outcome as Argentina cant pretend it can fight with USA/Australia/UK, they only started it as they thought that the UK wasn't interested and would accept it post fact.
It's more than just Argentina in this AU if you recall; also, the war is now in '78 rather than '82 and USA is still deep in a post-Vietnam funk, Australia's capacity to render assistance without US involvement is limited at best, so it's basically Falklands and the Royal navy against a conglomerate of 4-5 South American powers.

IMO, its your AU.

A CL for the FI, since you like them so much .

Designed to hunt AMC in the south Atlantic as cheaply as possible, a cut down light CL built just pre war.


JSB