Sukarno stays in power - what would Australia do?

[Hood]

I'm afraid you're flogging a dead horse with a Melbourne and the F 8. Now an improved Centaur on the other hand .

It's a rule on SPF that ALL carrier AU's must have an improved Centaur equipped with Spey-powered 2-seat Crusaders or Grumman Super Tigers (with any engine choice). All other options are just.....lame.

 

[Dilandu]

It's a rule on SPF that ALL carrier AU's must have an improved Centaur equipped with Spey-powered 2-seat Crusaders or Grumman Super Tigers (with any engine choice). All other options are just.....lame.

Well, I will be concent with JATO-kicked F-8FN from Melbourne) It would be enough, to provide CAP and anti-reconnaisance. Juat enough, of course, but enough (sorry for tautology) to justify the carrier existence in RAN facing more than a possible recon planes in open ocean.

 

[Pioneer]

Virtually no carriers outside the USN, RN to 1978 and MN to 1987 have had that capability, yet navies keep building them. The Melbourne had a SEATO role and participated in FESR exercises regularly so the RAN, RN and USN saw a use for it.

I also think the Indonesian bomber threat is vastly overstated. The supersonic Kh22 and Kh26 were not exported, only the subsonic KSR-2 was, and it didn't cripple Israel when Egypt used it in 1973. I think in the early days of a shooting war there would be a bomber vs bomber campaign, RAAF F111s would try to destroy the Indonesian Tu16s and Tu22s and vice versa and personally I think the F111s would get the better of this campaign.

The Melbourne would primarily be conducting sea control missions, performing valuable work blockading Indonesia and ensuring any ships that ventured any distance out to sea would be attacked. I'm sure that once the Indonesian bomber force was atrittioned a bit the Melbourne would sneak in for a strike but slugging it out with bombers USN style is not its role.

In any case the RAN had the Melbourne in service and the ADF had no alternative to its capability so it's not as if they're going to scrap it in 1968 or anything.

Interesting points for reflection Rule of cool!
I've begun thinking that HMAS Melbourne was somewhat like the F-111, in that the Australian government(s) were contemptuous of both platforms throughouttheir service lives. Reluctantly wanting to give either platforms the time or money to keep them cutting edge and always alluding to phase them out or simply justify their remaining in service.....
I wonder if consecutive Australian governments continued to give HMAS Melbourne grace, because of the notion of Australia needing to be part of geopolitical organisations like SEATO? To be inclusive, if you like.
The fact is, consecutive governments literally dragged the chain when the reality was either you replaced her, explicitly knowing and appreciating her limits/obsolescence or you put her out of her and RAN's misery.
I can't help reflect on the Indian Navy's initiative to see reality and bite the bullet, when deciding - ok, there is no realistic state-of-the-art, supersonic carrier-based fighter on the market or in the pipework, so let's be realistic and aquire a good and practical fighter/fighter-bomber which can give marginal, but realistic offensive and defence capabilities to their INS Vikrant (Majestic-class) carrier.....later add a 9.75 degree ski jump...... Alas this was sometime past the timeline of this threads scenario, but I thinknthe point I'm trying to make is that with the positive support and commitment of a government(s), HMAS Melbourne could have been utilised far more effectively....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Archibald]

Let me throw my 2cts again. Besides Skyhawks, the most modern aircraft to ever fly out of a Majestic / Colossus was the Super Etendard. Albeit it was a very tight fit.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jee8Gj6Ulow

Two sticky points
-MTOW of the Super Etendard was 12 metric tons ( = 24 000 pounds) which evenly matches an A-4E / A-4G MTOW.
-The Super Etendard has a lot in common with the Mirage F1, Magic 2 and radar included (Anemone & Cyrano IV are close siblings)

Everything else - Mirage G, naval F1, Jaguar M, Crusader - weights 15 tons as a bare minimum. In turn, this push the "minimum carrier treshold" away from Majestic & Colossus: to a) Hermes, b) Clemenceau, or c) Essex.

And then there is the Saipan class. How about those two ? Unlike the Independance class (9 built, 2 to France, 1 to Spain) they were retained by the USN.

Saipan-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Wondering how far could the Saipans be upgraded, and how would they compare to the Majestic / Colossus. For a start they were much, much faster: 33 kt versus 25 kt. This could help naval jets a lot.

 

[Dilandu]

Let me throw my 2cts again. Besides Skyhawks, the most modern aircraft to ever fly out of a Majestic / Colossus was the Super Etendard. Albeit it was a very tight fit.

Still... workable, I guess, but the S-E is barely supersonic (transsonic would be a closer term).

Everything else - Mirage G, naval F1, Jaguar M, Crusader - weights 15 tons as a bare minimum. In turn, this push the "minimum carrier treshold" away from Majestic & Colossus: to a) Hermes, b) Clemenceau, or c) Essex.

How exactly this treshold is determined?

Wondering how far could the Saipans be upgraded, and how would they compare to the Majestic / Colossus. For a start they were much, much faster: 33 kt versus 25 kt. This could help naval jets a lot

Hm. Actually a good question!

 

[Dilandu]

And then there is the Saipan class. How about those two ? Unlike the Independance class (9 built, 2 to France, 1 to Spain) they were retained by the USN.

But they were both rebuild in 1950s into command ship (Wright) and communication relay ship (Saipan). They aren't carriers anymore and not available for sale.

 

[Rule of cool]

I've begun thinking that HMAS Melbourne was somewhat like the F-111, in that the Australian government(s) were contemptuous of both platforms throughouttheir service lives. Reluctantly wanting to give either platforms the time or money to keep them cutting edge and always alluding to phase them out or simply justify their remaining in service.....
I wonder if consecutive Australian governments continued to give HMAS Melbourne grace, because of the notion of Australia needing to be part of geopolitical organisations like SEATO? To be inclusive, if you like.
The fact is, consecutive governments literally dragged the chain when the reality was either you replaced her, explicitly knowing and appreciating her limits/obsolescence or you put her out of her and RAN's misery.

In the early Cold War Australia was a strategic 'follower', doing our bit for Britain then the US, which didn't require us to be at the forefront of technology adoption and the like. We could always use the kit the UK and US provided; we didn't even need to sort out higher command arrangements as we slotted into Allied command chains.

Later in the Cold War we were fundamentally secure and adopted something akin to the UKs infamous interwar '10-year rule'. In procurement terms this meant that if we had the basics - a fighter and bomber fleet, some warships and subs and some tanks, APCs, Helicopers and artillery we could always improve and build those capabilities out if things got worse.

can't help reflect on the Indian Navy's initiative to see reality and bite the bullet, when deciding - ok, there is no realistic state-of-the-art, supersonic carrier-based fighter on the market or in the pipework, so let's be realistic and aquire a good and practical fighter/fighter-bomber which can give marginal, but realistic offensive and defence capabilities to their INS Vikrant (Majestic-class) carrier.....later add a 9.75 degree ski jump...... Alas this was sometime past the timeline of this threads scenario, but I thinknthe point I'm trying to make is that with the positive support and commitment of a government(s), HMAS Melbourne could have been utilised far more effectively....

The Vikrant is a good example of what a carrier can do. In the 1971 Indo-Pak war the Vikrant operated in the Bay of Bengal, stopping any air coming from West Pakistan and presumably assisting the offensive into East Pakistan when appropriate. All this with thoroughly obsolete Hawker Sea Hawk fighters.

India was so impressed with what this ship achieved they ordered Sea Harriers to replace her Sea Hawks and got the old Hermes to expand on this capability. The fact of the matter is even a small carrier with subsonic aircraft vastly increases the capability of a navy.

 

[Dilandu]

The Vikrant is a good example of what a carrier can do. In the 1971 Indo-Pak war the Vikrant operated in the Bay of Bengal, stopping any air coming from West Pakistan and presumably assisting the offensive into East Pakistan when appropriate. All this with thoroughly obsolete Hawker Sea Hawk fighters.

With all respect, but East Pakistan campaign was fought in the situation of almost complete Indian air superiority. All Pakistan Air Force have there was sixteen Canadian Sabres and some trainer planes. Indian Air Force literally concentrated against them more squadrons, than Eastern Pakistan have planes.

In the 1971 Indo-Pak war the Vikrant operated in the Bay of Bengal, stopping any air coming from West Pakistan

And being far enough away from any potential threat. Only a single Pakistan Navy submarine could threaten her here; and Indian Navy considered this threat significant enough to plan a special operation to find and destroy the Ghazi.

India was so impressed with what this ship achieved they ordered Sea Harriers to replace her Sea Hawks and got the old Hermes to expand on this capability. The fact of the matter is even a small carrier with subsonic aircraft vastly increases the capability of a navy.

Yes, but Indian Navy in 1971 operated in the situation of absolute superiority, created both by numerical advantage & the sucsessfull pre-emptive strike against Pakistan Navy in Kharachi. Which, I should remind you, was performed by missile boats with P-15 Termit missiles - NOT the carrier aircraft.

I should also remind, that in previous war, in 1965, the Indian Navy done almost nothing at all, despite having a carrier.

 

[Rule of cool]

With all respect, but East Pakistan campaign was fought in the situation of almost complete Indian air superiority. All Pakistan Air Force have there was sixteen Canadian Sabres and some trainer planes. Indian Air Force literally concentrated against them more squadrons, than Eastern Pakistan have planes.


And being far enough away from any potential threat. Only a single Pakistan Navy submarine could threaten her here; and Indian Navy considered this threat significant enough to plan a special operation to find and destroy the Ghazi.


Yes, but Indian Navy in 1971 operated in the situation of absolute superiority, created both by numerical advantage & the sucsessfull pre-emptive strike against Pakistan Navy in Kharachi. Which, I should remind you, was performed by missile boats with P-15 Termit missiles - NOT the carrier aircraft.

I should also remind, that in previous war, in 1965, the Indian Navy done almost nothing at all, despite having a carrier.

The 1971 Indo-Pak war was fought on 2 fronts, PAF undertook a pre-emptive airstrike on Idian airbases from West Pakistan and a Pakistani sub torpedoed and sunk an Indian frigate off India's NW coast, the first time a sub had sunk a ship since WW2. India had the choice of where to employ the Vikrant and chose to employ her in the east.

I'd point out that while this scenario's changes don't start until 1966-67, Indonesia got the Tu16s in 1961 and was confrontational from 1962 Australia never considered disposing of the carrier capability. In fact, at the height of the Confrontation in 1964-65 Australia decided to keep Melbourne and equip her with a new generation of aircraft rather than cower in fear of AShM equipped Tu16s or go nuts and rebuild an Essex class to operate F4s.

 

[Felocie]

Just throwing out ideas for discussion: What about acquiring HMS Eagle? I presume it would be too big?

 

[GK Dundas]

Just throwing out ideas for discussion: What about acquiring HMS Eagle? I presume it would be too big?

Get to the UK Government fast enough in 1967 and you might be able snag Victorious. The British are desperately trying to get rid of her.
For several reason aside from the reason they're trying to get out of the Carrier business completely. She's a constant reminder to the voting public of Governments waste.
She cost an immature fortune to rebuild and that was even before they discovered that after completing it they had to replace her boilers and engines.
Also the RN were going through yet another manpower shortage and laying up or selling off even a small Aircraft Carrier would help.

 

[Rule of cool]

HMS Hermes was offered to Australia in about 1968, but it was declined due to the manpower requirements, Eagle would be much worse.

That said this is a different scenario, perhaps the manpower would be made available through conscription.

 

[Felocie]

Few notes about Eagle: Complement with air wing would be about twice that of Melbourne (pretty steep) but not as bad when we consider they are divesting Sydney (peacetime complement 1100) at the same time. That means they’re scrounging up another 400-500 men by my reckoning, not 1500.

Sensors wise, she’s not to badly established and her equipment still has good life in it. An aircraft facilities upgrade would be in order but that can be procured from the US (specifically jet blast deflectors as the final blast deflectors where insufficient as proved by testing with F-4s).

CBG wise, given her sensor suite, cueing a Perth for air defence and two Rivers would be ideal. Given the RAN did not go with the nuclear boat option I would not assign a submarine to the force unless that were to change.

Just spitballing, the idea still has a few major problems, primarily the aircraft acquisition cost. British jets were reaching the end of their tether so an all new complement from the US would be required. As I’m sure you can imagine, that isn’t cheap.

 

[Rule of cool]

FWIW when Australia was considering a rebuilt Essex back in 1964 the proposed CAG was 16 F4s and 12 S2s, my guess is that if Eagle was considered its CAG would consist primarily of Spey Phantoms and maybe the A4s would be retained or divested. I doubt the RAN would get a second type like the Buccaneer, A6 or A7 for the Eagle.

 

[Rule of cool]

Just a tangent that shouldn't hijack the thread. There are numerous ideas for a better Britian, I wonder how they'd do in this scenario.

 

[Felocie]

FWIW when Australia was considering a rebuilt Essex back in 1964 the proposed CAG was 16 F4s and 12 S2s, my guess is that if Eagle was considered its CAG would consist primarily of Spey Phantoms and maybe the A4s would be retained or divested. I doubt the RAN would get a second type like the Buccaneer, A6 or A7 for the Eagle.

EA-6 would be a definite buy, as would be Tracers. At the minimum the Spey Phantoms would be brought up to US radar and weapon standards for commonality

 

[Rule of cool]

EA-6 would be a definite buy, as would be Tracers. At the minimum the Spey Phantoms would be brought up to US radar and weapon standards for commonality

The RAN would buy more Phantoms for strike rather than introduce a 2nd aircraft into service. E1 could lean on the S2 fleet so wouldn't be as big of a deal.

This hints at the elephant in the room for the RAN getting something as big as Eagle. The CAG wouldn't reach the potential of the ship, so such a large powerful ships potential would be wasted.

 

[Felocie]

The RAN would buy more Phantoms for strike rather than introduce a 2nd aircraft into service. E1 could lean on the S2 fleet so wouldn't be as big of a deal.

This hints at the elephant in the room for the RAN getting something as big as Eagle. The CAG wouldn't reach the potential of the ship, so such a large powerful ships potential would be wasted.

EA-6 is for EW and limited SEAD, likely indispensable for true modern operations.

Second, Eagle carried 45 aircraft. Now let’s say the RAN air wing it 12 Phantoms, 6 trackers, and 2-3 tracers. That’s 23. Round that out with EA-6 and as many ASW helicopters as you can’t fit and you get a fairly complete aircraft complement

 

[Rule of cool]

EA-6 is for EW and limited SEAD, likely indispensable for true modern operations.

Second, Eagle carried 45 aircraft. Now let’s say the RAN air wing it 12 Phantoms, 6 trackers, and 2-3 tracers. That’s 23. Round that out with EA-6 and as many ASW helicopters as you can’t fit and you get a fairly complete aircraft complement

The USN was the only Western aur force to have dedicated electronic jamming aircraft until 1983 when the USAF introduced the EF111. Indeed in the 60s and 70s ECM was not common on tactical aircraft, as such I doubt the RAN would be the 2nd user of dedicated jamming aircraft.

Of course that assumes the EA-6 could operate from the Eagle at combat weights.

 

[Felocie]

The USN was the only Western aur force to have dedicated electronic jamming aircraft until 1983 when the USAF introduced the EF111. Indeed in the 60s and 70s ECM was not common on tactical aircraft, as such I doubt the RAN would be the 2nd user of dedicated jamming aircraft.

Of course that assumes the EA-6 could operate from the Eagle at combat weights.

Perhaps but with the close RAN-US relationship I wouldn’t rule it out. In any case, an interesting thought experiment

 

[Rule of cool]

Perhaps but with the close RAN-US relationship I wouldn’t rule it out. In any case, an interesting thought experiment

This is a good scenario, nice and compact but with plenty of scope within those bounds.

 

[Scott Kenny]

FWIW when Australia was considering a rebuilt Essex back in 1964 the proposed CAG was 16 F4s and 12 S2s, my guess is that if Eagle was considered its CAG would consist primarily of Spey Phantoms and maybe the A4s would be retained or divested. I doubt the RAN would get a second type like the Buccaneer, A6 or A7 for the Eagle.

IMO, the best bet would be to divest the A-4s and likely just buy more Phantoms for the strike role.

Though the A-7Es did also have Spey and as a single-engine type would be cheaper to fly than Phantoms. Plus take up less space so it might be possible to operate 16-18 of them for the same volume as 12 Phantoms. So let's hold onto that thought for an option.

So, I'm guessing 1 Squadron of Phantoms, 1 Squadron of S-2 Trackers, a detachment of ~4-5x E-1 Tracers (because they use the same engines and most of the other logistics as the Trackers), a detachment of ~2-3x C-1 Traders (same logic as Tracers), some Sea Kings, and then the strike squadron (of either Phantoms of A-7Es).

Ideally converting all the Tracker/Tracer/Traders to turboprop, just so you don't need to set aside tanks for Avgas versus Jet fuel.

 

[Dilandu]

Of course that assumes the EA-6 could operate from the Eagle at combat weights.

Theoretically, Eagle have the same catapult setup as Ark Royal, i.e. was capable of launching Buckaneer - albeit not at max takeoff weight. If I recall correctly, Ark Royal could only use her longer angle deck BS5 catapult to launch heavy planes, thought. The Prowler is roughly comparable to Buckaneer in takeoff weight, so if it did not require water cooled deflectors (which were fitted for Ark Royal, but not Eagle) she could took off Eagle. Theoretically.

But I seriously doubt that USN would sell Prowler. It's a brand-new, highly classified machine in 1970s. And the AN/ALQ-99 pod wasn't for export even in 2000s.

 

[Rule of cool]

A picture paints 1000 words.

Check out the nosewheel as this Buccaneer is about to launch. An Intruder doesn't sit like that!

 

[Dilandu]

A picture paints 1000 words.

Check out the nosewheel as this Buccaneer is about to launch. An Intruder doesn't sit like that!

I seriously doubt that Intruder could operate from Eagle. At least, not at max capacity.

 

[Felocie]

Ideally converting all the Tracker/Tracer/Traders to turboprop, just so you don't need to set aside tanks for Avgas versus Jet fuel.

CAC could do the turbo conversion fairly easily. Another idea would be updated the Tracers with a modern radar system, akin to an E-2 (although, obviously, not the exact same system).

 

[Dilandu]

So let's summarize the carrier possibilities. The core assumption is, that carrier must be able to operate supersonic (or at least transsonic) interceptor with SARH missiles; otherwise it won't be of much use against Indonesian missile-carrying bombers.

0. Retain the Melbourne. Advantages - it's the cheapest and readily available solution. Disadvantages - pretty much everything else. The only supersonic aircraft it could realistically carry is non-SARH capable Etendard IV. So... not a good deal.

1.1. Buy the Hermes. Suggested in OTL 1968. Advantages - still reasonably cheap, relatively more capable and not dissimilar from Melbourne, greatly easing crew training. Disadvantages - still not much more capable. The only supersonic interceptor it could operate would be F-8 Crusader (presumably a French version, F-8E(FN), which was SARH capable). And even it would likely require a special efforts, like launching Crusader with light fuel load and refueling from A-4 tanker pod.

1.2 Buy the Eagle. As far as I know, not suggested, but possible, since RN wasn't much inrerested in her. Advantages - much greater capabilities. With some refit, like water-cooled blast deflectors and stronger arresting cables, she could operate F-4 Phantoms (though French Crusaders might still be a safer option). She is also in relatively good condition, being refitted and overhauled. Disadvantages - much greater operation cost, potentially limited service life.

1.3. Buy the Essex. While there isn't un-modernized Essex-class carriers left by late 1960s - besides Bunker Hill, but I'm not exactly sure about her condition (she was written off and used as electronic test rig, apparently without much consideration for mainteance) - its stand to reason that USN may be willing to sell a modernized CVA (Oriskany, for example), which was slated to be decommissioned by mid-1970s anyway. Advantages: full-scale strike carrier, capable of operating American-delivered aircraft, could likely be brought cheap (USN offered non-modernized Essex in 1960 at the cost of her refit). Disadvantages: a worn-out ship with limited service life. Likely would not be available till mid-1970s.

2.1. Build a new carrier in USA. A medium-sized carrier based on Tarawa-class LHD hull looks pretty possible, and not prohibitedly costly. Of course, it would require much more powerful powerplant to have a tactical reasonable speed; either doubling the existing steam one, or moving to COSAG (installing a set of gas turbines to give more hp). Advantages: would be able to operate F-4 Phantom, likely A-6 Intruders and maybe even AEW planes, long service life. Disadvantages: would likely be available only by late 1970s, would cost a lot (US shipbuilding isn't exactly cheap)

2.2. Build a new carrier in France. Something between Clemenceau-repeat & planned Verdun. Advantages: likely would be the most tactical capable solution & cheaper than US build carrier. Disadvantages: would took time to construct, would require American-delivered components, not exactly clear what kind of fighters would be able to operate (French Navy did not use Phantoms, so likely Crusader-limited again)

 

[Felocie]

Great summation, just a few notes:

1.2 Buy the Eagle. As far as I know, not suggested, but possible, since RN wasn't much inrerested in her. Advantages - much greater capabilities. With some refit, like water-cooled blast deflectors and stronger arresting cables, she could operate F-4 Phantoms (though French Crusaders might still be a safer option). She is also in relatively good condition, being refitted and overhauled. Disadvantages - much greater operation cost, potentially limited service life.

I believe her scrapped RN refit was meant to do an American style overhaul of her aircraft launch and recovery gear anyway so that equipment may already be surplus and at the very least it is easy to fit.

1.3. Buy the Essex. While there isn't un-modernized Essex-class carriers left by late 1960s - besides Bunker Hill, but I'm not exactly sure about her condition (she was written off and used as electronic test rig, apparently without much consideration for mainteance) - its stand to reason that USN may be willing to sell a modernized CVA (Oriskany, for example), which was slated to be decommissioned by mid-1970s anyway. Advantages: full-scale strike carrier, capable of operating American-delivered aircraft, could likely be brought cheap (USN offered non-modernized Essex in 1960 at the cost of her refit). Disadvantages: a worn-out ship with limited service life. Likely would not be available till mid-1970s.

Essex class refits are an option but far from completely ideal. From memory documentation suggested only a handful (maybe as few as 2-3) where in good working order and refits such as these aren’t cheap. Unlike Eagle or Hermes, it would seem more work would need to be done. The trade off is the end product would likely be better than a British ship.

2.1. Build a new carrier in USA. A medium-sized carrier based on Tarawa-class LHD hull looks pretty possible, and not prohibitedly costly. Of course, it would require much more powerful powerplant to have a tactical reasonable speed; either doubling the existing steam one, or moving to COSAG (installing a set of gas turbines to give more hp). Advantages: would be able to operate F-4 Phantom, likely A-6 Intruders and maybe even AEW planes, long service life. Disadvantages: would likely be available only by late 1970s, would cost a lot (US shipbuilding isn't exactly cheap)

Two points here:
1) Melbourne could’ve filled the gap long enough for this option to be viable (as explained in the procurement documents) so definitely one to look at.
2) A RAN “payment plan”, not unlike those for the Perths would significantly sweeten the deal and it is l reasonable to assume something of this nature could be negotiated.
Although I am biased because this is my favourite option, I do think this is the most favourable outcome for an Australia with an imminent threat at its door.

2.2. Build a new carrier in France. Something between Clemenceau-repeat & planned Verdun. Advantages: likely would be the most tactical capable solution & cheaper than US build carrier. Disadvantages: would took time to construct, would require American-delivered components, not exactly clear what kind of fighters would be able to operate (French Navy did not use Phantoms, so likely Crusader-limited again)

A French carrier built for export could be made to launch Phantoms, especially given it is highly unlikely Australia would consider using catapults and their associated machinery from any country other than America.

 

[Rule of cool]

IIUC the Eagle was grounded in 1969 which bent a prop shaft or something and caused bad vibration. That would have to be fixed in any refit, which adds to the cost.

 

[Dilandu]

I believe her scrapped RN refit was meant to do an American style overhaul of her aircraft launch and recovery gear anyway so that equipment may already be surplus and at the very least it is easy to fit.

Quite possible. As far as I knew, the cost of her "Phantomisation" was considered to be in low millions, and was cancelled mainly because of desire to get rid of big carriers.

Essex class refits are an option but far from completely ideal. From memory documentation suggested only a handful (maybe as few as 2-3) where in good working order and refits such as these aren’t cheap. Unlike Eagle or Hermes, it would seem more work would need to be done. The trade off is the end product would likely be better than a British ship.

True. The CVA Essex are actively used by USN, and would be available only in rather worn-out condition. The CVS Essex would require a backward rebuild to strike carrier standard over the aging, worn-out hull - which would probably cost even more than "pure" refit. Of unmodernized Essex, only "Bunker Hill" remained, and she is in unclear state.

1) Melbourne could’ve filled the gap long enough for this option to be viable (as explained in the procurement documents) so definitely one to look at.
2) A RAN “payment plan”, not unlike those for the Perths would significantly sweeten the deal and it is l reasonable to assume something of this nature could be negotiated.
Although I am biased because this is my favourite option, I do think this is the most favourable outcome for an Australia with an imminent threat at its door.

A valid points! A COSAG Tarawa-based carrier would clearly have a greater lasting value - she would be able to transition from F-4 to F/A-18 in 1980s, and serve at least till 2000s. Longer, more likely.

A French carrier built for export could be made to launch Phantoms, especially given it is highly unlikely Australia would consider using catapults and their associated machinery from any country other than America.

If I recall correctly, Clemenceau-class used British-type catapults, so the difference would not be significant.

 

[Dilandu]

IIUC the Eagle was grounded in 1969 which bent a prop shaft or something and caused bad vibration. That would have to be fixed in any refit, which adds to the cost.

True. Still she is the top of "affordable" solutions, since otherwise she is in a relatively good shape and Royal Navy have no desire to actually keep her.

 

[Pioneer]

I often think it was a missed opportunity that Vought never had the hindsight to market it's Vought V.384 proposal to countries like Britain, Canada and Australia, to equip their small carriers with a supersonic fighter.
Keep or swap out the J65 for a Avon and you have a smaller, lighter and cheaper derivative of it's bigger brother - the V.383/F-8 Crusader....

(Profile drawings by Jonethetank)

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Dilandu]

I often think it was a missed opportunity that Vought never had the hindsight to market it's Vought V.384 proposal to countries like Britain, Canada and Australia, to equip their small carriers with a supersonic fighter.
Keep or swap out the J65 for a Avon and you have a smaller, lighter and cheaper derivative of it's bigger brother - the V.383/F-8 Crusader....

The "supersonic plane for small carriers" concept was popular, but largerly killed by RIM-24 Tartar. The SAM-capabe frigates were viewed as much cheaper alternative.

 

[Archibald]

Wondering about Franklin and Bunker Hill. Both were horribly mauled in spring 1945, yet they were saved. Important point: they were not only cleaned and patched up; but the wear and tear of their brief pre-kamikaze careers was erased.
Put otherwise: they had, once again, their full lifetime ahead of them.

... And then they spent the next 20 years in storage, waiting for a massive rebuild, beyond even Oriskany's SCB-125A.... that never came.

My question : could one of these Essex been rebuild to drastically diminish its manpower requirements, helping its RAAN case ?

 

[GK Dundas]

IMO, the best bet would be to divest the A-4s and likely just buy more Phantoms for the strike role.

Though the A-7Es did also have Spey and as a single-engine type would be cheaper to fly than Phantoms. Plus take up less space so it might be possible to operate 16-18 of them for the same volume as 12 Phantoms. So let's hold onto that thought for an option.

So, I'm guessing 1 Squadron of Phantoms, 1 Squadron of S-2 Trackers, a detachment of ~4-5x E-1 Tracers (because they use the same engines and most of the other logistics as the Trackers), a detachment of ~2-3x C-1 Traders (same logic as Tracers), some Sea Kings, and then the strike squadron (of either Phantoms of A-7Es).

Ideally converting all the Tracker/Tracer/Traders to turboprop, just so you don't need to set aside tanks for Avgas versus Jet fuel.

I've been pondering the " Ultimate Crusader"" picture if you will the Tuasder two seater using a Spey powerplant. Equipped with APQ 64 for air intercept .
Armed with AIM-9 and AIM 7's and to further my delusions I thought I'd see if I could cram two 30 mm ADEN's .
Turboprops are definitely the way to go for the Trackers. Fuel logistics aside there's there's the safety issue. Avgas is far more explosive the JP 4.

 

[GK Dundas]

Wondering about Franklin and Bunker Hill. Both were horribly mauled in spring 1945, yet they were saved. Important point: they were not only cleaned and patched up; but the wear and tear of their brief pre-kamikaze careers was erased.
Put otherwise: they had, once again, their full lifetime ahead of them.

... And then they spent the next 20 years in storage, waiting for a massive rebuild, beyond even Oriskany's SCB-125A.... that never came.

My question : could one of these Essex been rebuild to drastically diminish its manpower requirements, helping its RAAN case ?

Now that's an interesting question. It's got me pondering it's potential for the RCN as well as for the RAN.

 

[Rule of cool]

Before people get too far down the carrier rabbit hole the C11 equipped Essex class couldn't launch the Phantom and the Eagle could only operate the Spey Phantoms which cost 3 times as much as an F4J. The F8 left production in 1964 and the F14 started production in 1973 and F15 in 1974 so the F4 isn't a long-term solution by the early 70s even if it was suitable. All of this assumes the RAN could man and afford an Essex, Eagle or other big carrier, which they couldn't.

 

[Archibald]

Bottom line: second-hand SCB-125 Essex are not interesting to both RN and RAAN because
a) as you say, C11 catapults are too weak (C14 if corrected of its irregular throw problems, screams for adoption !)
b) they are worn out by 20 to 25 years of service and
c) their crews are waaaaay too large.

In turn, this is the reason why I vastly prefer Franklin and Bunker Hill. Basically, could a smart rebuild correct issues a), b) and c).

What was the largest crew requirement, on, say, SCB-125A Oriskany ? boilers, air group, or something else ? could this be slashed the smart way ?

Now I'm daydreaming of USS Franklin rebuild with slashed crew numbers, C14 catapults, and a Mirage G3M / A-7B / E-1B Turbotracer air group... plus a few VTOL / STOL aircraft, for good measure.

 

[uk 75]

The UK could impact these scenarios in two ways different from real life.

CVA01 might have survived under a Tory Government after the RAF mismanaged TSR2 which was doomed even before 1964. Mountbatten persuades the government to go with the RN approach to East of Suez. Australia looks at a UK offer to provide a carrier followed by an RAN CVA01. Pretty far fetched.

Healey really gets fed up with the Navy and also decides wealthy countries in the Gulf and Singapore can provide their own defence.
All the carriers are to leave service by 1970 and the RN Phantom order is transfered to the RAF. Australia is offered Hermes with Eagle/Ark as another option. Australia could pay for Phantomisation of one of Eagle/Ark with the other for spares. More or less happened in real life and Australia opted to keep Melbourne.

Melbourne's role in the RAN was pretty close to that of the US Essex class (and the Canadian and Dutch ASW carriers).
Strike (as proposed for the RAF) was a land based role (with F111s).

I dont see the RAN playing a key role in confrontation with Indonesia in 1966 to 1980. Initially RAAF Canberras then F4s and finally F111s would be able to support in East Timor and PNG with Mirages able to cope with Indonesian Migs and Sukhois.
There is also the possibility from 1970 to 1973 of the Heath government deploying Vulcans and Phantoms on rotation as it did to Singapore and Malaysia.

 

[Dilandu]

Wondering about Franklin and Bunker Hill. Both were horribly mauled in spring 1945, yet they were saved. Important point: they were not only cleaned and patched up; but the wear and tear of their brief pre-kamikaze careers was erased.
Put otherwise: they had, once again, their full lifetime ahead of them.

... And then they spent the next 20 years in storage, waiting for a massive rebuild, beyond even Oriskany's SCB-125A.... that never came.

True. Ironically, the fact that they were in best condition after major overhaul caused Navy to postpone their refits till the "fully comprehensive" refit scheme could be finalized. Because, well, those carriers were almost brand-new, and Navy logically wanted to use them for a long time. As a result, they became obsolete before "comprehensive " refit could be finalized.

My question : could one of these Essex been rebuild to drastically diminish its manpower requirements, helping its RAAN case ?

This would require major powerplant alterations. Or some kind of radical design solutions that would allow to reduce the hangar & deck crew (like automatic weapon-loading stations).