Alternative RAAF fleets.

[NOMISYRRUC]

Mate, don't run me down that rabbit hole, that way lies madness. RAAF Lightning fighter-bomber or TSR2 sort of stuff!

I suspect that half of you think I'm mad in the first place. So no change there. And the other half will soon agree. Because there's more where that came from.

Much as I want the RAAF to have bought 50 TSR.2s for a one-for-one replacement of its Canberras (to equip 3 squadrons and a training flight) getting it to buy Nimrod in its OTL or TTL form is a much easer proposition.

More "mad" ideas are that No. 79 Sqn moved to Australia in 1968 and converted to Mirage IIIs instead of disbanding and No. 73 Sqn didn't disband in 1973. As there were still 116 Mirage IIIs to support 5 squadrons and a larger OCU there would be a 25% higher attrition rate after 1968 and a 67% higher attrition rate after 1973 and the surviving aircraft would wear out at a faster rate due to 25% higher usage rates 1968-73 and 67% higher usage rates from 1973.

As a result the OTL batch of 6 Mirage IIIDs delivered 1973-74 IOTL is increased to 40 for a total of 150 aircraft instead to 116 to support the 67% larger front-line force and 67% larger OCU. These aircraft had Commonwealth-built Atar 9K-50 engines and the survivors of the original 110 Mirages have them fitted in the second half of the 1970s as part of a SLEP programme to increase their fatigue lives (if that's the right expression).

Meanwhile, the RNZAF had a squadron of Canberras and a squadron of Venoms in the 1960s. ITTL both converted to Mirage IIIs built by Commonwealth between the completion of the first run of 110 Mirage IIIs and the second run of 40 Mirage IIIs. This increased the total number of Mirage IIIs built by Commonwealth from 114 to 198. Instead of forming a training flight to support the two squadrons the RNZAF aircrew did their conversion training at the RAAF's OCU.

The RNZAF also bought 16 MB-326H built by Commonwealth instead of the Strikemasters. However, instead of using them to equip a training squadron they were delivered to the equivalent units in the RAAF because the two air forces created a joint training organisation in an effort to cut costs.

Then in the 1980s the RAAF bought 125 Hornets its Mirages and the RNZAF bought 50 Hornets to replace its Mirages. All 175 were assembled in Australia from Completely Knocked Down (CKD) kits and both nations got offset packages of at east 100%.

More madness is that the RAAF has to support 5 Mirage III squadrons from 1973 instead of 3 and 50 TSR.2s from 1973 instead of 24 F-111Cs. Therefore the training organisation has to be expanded. So more CT4s and MB-326s were built.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I suspect that half of you think I'm mad in the first place. So no change there. And the other half will soon agree. Because there's more where that came from.

And for my next trick I shall descend from simple madness to utter fruit-cakery.

IOTL the plan was to refit Sydney to the same standard as Melbourne and AIUI enough Gannets and Sea Venoms were purchased to form air groups for both ships.

However, ITTL around 1950 some cost accountant reaches the conclusion that it's quicker and (in the long run) cheaper to complete another suspended Majestic class carrier instead of refitting Sydney. His Antipodean Majesty's Government buys Leviathan from his Britannic Majesty's Government ITTL and it's completed as HMAS Brisbane circa 1955.

In common with Warrior & Melbourne IOTL, Sydney sails to the UK circa 1955 and her crew takes Melbourne over on arrival. Sydney reverts to her original name (Terrible) and the RN keeps her in reserve until 1965 when she's scrapped.

Brisbane's subsequent career was much the same as Melbourne's. Except they were replaced in the 1980s by two Invincible class or one CVA.01 class. As a result the RAN buys more Wessexes, twice as many Skyhawks, twice as many Skyhawks and twice as many Trackers because it as two air groups to support instead of one. This also means that Commonwealth built 36 MB-326Hs for the RAN instead of 18.

This is part of a RAN timeline where:

• 6 Darings were built instead of 2 Battles and 4 Darings with all 6 ships completed by the middle 1950s.
• The 6 Type 12s announced in IIRC 1950 are completed in the late 1950s instead of 4 the that were completed in the early 1960s and 2 being cancelled.
• All 3 Tribals were modernised as planned IOTL and all 5 Emergency type destroyers were rebuilt as Type 15 frigates, instead of 2 and 4 respectively.
• The above were replaced by 8 Type 12s built during the course of the 1960s which include the OTL Swan and Torrens.
• The RNZN still acquires 4 frigates (2 Rothesays and 2 Leanders) during this period, but they're built in Australia instead of the UK.
• 4 County class may be built in Australia instead of the 3 US-built Adams class.
• If they are some of the weapons and electronics, such as the Seaslug and ADAWS-1 would have been manufactured in the UK.
• But if they are they may be replacements for the 3 Tribals and one Type 15. In which case the number of of Type 12s built in the 1960s would have been reduced from 12 to 8 - that is
• The Light Destroyer (DDL) wasn't cancelled and they're built at the rate of one every one-or-two years until the ANZAC frigate is ready for production.
• The DDL was similar to the British Type 42 and both ships had the same machinery.
• Therefore, ITTL both navies may buy a hybrid design, which is the DDL hull with a British payload. E.g. Sea Dart instead of Standard MR, a 4.5in gun instead of the 5in, ADAWS instead of NTDS and a British radar (preferably an earlier Type 1022) instead of SPS-48.

The reader may notice that ITTL Australia has a rolling shipbuilding programme of half-to-one "frigoyer" a year from the late 1940s to the end of the Cold War. That's instead of OTL's stop-go policy of US imports and domestically built ships. As a result it might not cost excessively more than what happened IOTL. Therefore, I may not be a fruit-cake after all.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And for my next trick I shall descend from simple madness to utter fruit-cakery.

IOTL the plan was to refit Sydney to the same standard as Melbourne and AIUI enough Gannets and Sea Venoms were purchased to form air groups for both ships.

However, ITTL around 1950 some cost accountant reaches the conclusion that it's quicker and (in the long run) cheaper to complete another suspended Majestic class carrier instead of refitting Sydney. His Antipodean Majesty's Government buys Leviathan from his Britannic Majesty's Government ITTL and it's completed as HMAS Brisbane circa 1955.

In common with Warrior & Melbourne IOTL, Sydney sails to the UK circa 1955 and her crew takes Melbourne over on arrival. Sydney reverts to her original name (Terrible) and the RN keeps her in reserve until 1965 when she's scrapped.

Brisbane's subsequent career was much the same as Melbourne's. Except they were replaced in the 1980s by two Invincible class or one CVA.01 class. As a result the RAN buys more Wessexes, twice as many Skyhawks, twice as many Skyhawks and twice as many Trackers because it as two air groups to support instead of one. This also means that Commonwealth built 36 MB-326Hs for the RAN instead of 18.

This gets my usual objection that you need 3 ships to have one at sea. Though you could get away with 2.5 air wings instead of a full 3, because one ship is in shipyard and basically unavailable for operations while the other two would need air wings. The 0.5 air wing is the OCUs, brought to full strength via the attrition spares in case of war.

 

[Rule of cool]

All of that is a huge ask from a tax and recruitment base of 10 million in 1960 and less than 13 in 1970 with full employment.

There is likely an opportunity to leverage the Vietnam commitment for a somewhat larger set of RAAF, RAN and even Army equipment fleets. Not having conscription would be a start, having a larger Army armour and medium artillery, RAAF and RAN effort to compensate. But this won't make Australia a great regional power, especially once the region settles down after Vietnam.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This gets my usual objection that you need 3 ships to have one at sea. Though you could get away with 2.5 air wings instead of a full 3, because one ship is in shipyard and basically unavailable for operations while the other two would need air wings. The 0.5 air wing is the OCUs, brought to full strength via the attrition spares in case of war.

So you're objecting Australian to having 66% of that capability ITTL instead of 33% of that capability IOTL?

Message 162 was about Australia being able to complete its 1952 naval programme by 1960. That was for a total of 116 ships (36 active and 80 reserve) consisting of 2 aircraft carriers, 3 cruisers, 9 destroyers, 11 fast frigates, 14 slow frigates, 32 minesweepers and 45 other vessels.

There weren't any submarines because the RN based some submarines in Australia for A/S training. E.g. according to Jane's 1952-53 there were 3 T class submarines on loan from the RN. The were based at Sydney and formed the Fourth Submarine Squadron.

Jane's 1952-53 said that the 1947 Programme was for £A75 million to be spent over 5 years. It's unclear whether that's the total for the ADF or the RAN's portion. However, it did include Melbourne, Sydney, the 4 Darings and the 2 Battles.

It also said that the 1952 Programme was for £A559 million to be spend over 3 years, including £A137 million on the RAN. The RAN's personnel strength was to be increased from 13,490 in 1952 to 17,000 by 1953. AFAIK IOTL that was where the programme failed. The Australian Government was prepared to spend the money needed to build, maintain and man the ships, but it couldn't recruit the men in the numbers required. I deliberately wrote men, because I suspect that women were joining the WRANS in the numbers required.

As I'm still in fruitcake mode the plan could be for 3 aircraft carriers, with the third ship in place of some or all of the 3 cruisers, which were Australia, Hobart and Shropshire. That would give you your desired force of one ship fully-operational, one ship working-up and one ship in-refit/reserve. There'd be two operational and one training air group to support them. The first ship to go into refit/reserve would be Sydney (to bring her up to the same standard as Melbourne) upon the delivery of Brisbane.

I'd also have Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney built as Centaur class ships instead of Majestics. However, I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't upset @EwenS and I upset him far too often already.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

All of that is a huge ask from a tax and recruitment base of 10 million in 1960 and less than 13 in 1970 with full employment.

There is likely an opportunity to leverage the Vietnam commitment for a somewhat larger set of RAAF, RAN and even Army equipment fleets. Not having conscription would be a start, having a larger Army armour and medium artillery, RAAF and RAN effort to compensate. But this won't make Australia a great regional power, especially once the region settles down after Vietnam.

I did write that I was mad in Message 161 and a fruit-cake in Message 162.

FWIW "huge ask" and "leverage" turn me into Ed Reardon as well.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

All of that is a huge ask from a tax and recruitment base of 10 million in 1960 and less than 13 in 1970 with full employment.

There is likely an opportunity to leverage the Vietnam commitment for a somewhat larger set of RAAF, RAN and even Army equipment fleets. Not having conscription would be a start, having a larger Army armour and medium artillery, RAAF and RAN effort to compensate. But this won't make Australia a great regional power, especially once the region settles down after Vietnam.

You're lucky that I didn't suggest that the Australian CAF and New Zealand TAF squadrons weren't disbanded. The CAF squadrons re-equip with Sabres given up by the Regular fighter squadrons when they re-equip with Mirage IIIs and in turn Mirage IIIs when the regular fighter squadrons convert to the Hornet. I'll have to think about the TAF squadrons.

 

[Rule of cool]

I did write that I was mad in Message 161 and a fruit-cake in Message 162.

FWIW "huge ask" and "leverage" turn me into Ed Reardon as well.

You're doing left and right of arc, with the other end of the spectrum having to borrow a white flag from an AFL Goal Umpire because the government is too mean to buy one.

 

[Rule of cool]

More "mad" ideas are that No. 79 Sqn moved to Australia in 1968 and converted to Mirage IIIs instead of disbanding

I'd prefer that 79 sqn was sent from Thailand to South Vietnam in mid 1966, once 1 ATF was established in Phouc Tuy province, either at Vung Tau airbase with the Caribous etc or Phan Rang where the Canberras went in 1967. By then the RAAF Sabres had been well and truly sidelined in their air defence role by the USAF due to the restrictive RoE and obsolete aircraft. Given the Sabres were already being replaced by Mirages they might as well be used up in combat and 79 sqn could be disbanded once the Canberras arrived in 1967.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Personally, the F-86Hs (with the 8,920 lb.s.t. J73) would have been a good choice for the RAAF (4x20mm cannons on this version).

Or go "joint" and just buy the FJ-4 Fury for both the RAAF and RAN - it had J65 (BS Sapphire) engines that were a match in performance for the 100-series Avons of the CA.27 (and RAAF Canberras) - (7,700 lb.s.t. vs 7,500 lb.s.t. for the Avon) - and Wright had, by 1959, developed a 8,300 lb.s.t. J65 (a possibility for an upgrade program in 1960). There was a 8,000 lb.s.t. Avon 100 developed in the late 1950s as well.

The Avon , J65, & J73 required 120 lb/sec intake air-mass flow, and the J47 only needed 103 lb/sec.

I suspect the RAAF would insist on Avons for commonality with the Canberra, and it would be likely easier to modify the FJ-4 for Avons than it had been to do the CA-27 - since the intakes & exhaust were already sized for the J65's needs, which were the same as the Avon's. Just the engine bay and mounts, and engine connections (all of which were in the aft fuselage) would need altering - not the whole fuselage like in the CA-27.

The FJ-4's wings, tail surfaces, etc were all designed for transonic flight, and it easily broke Mach 1 in a shallow dive (or level if "clean") - when fitted with an auxiliary rocket motor the two FJ-4Fs (which were otherwise unmodified in fuselage*, wing, or tail surfaces) hit Mach 1.41!

The Fury would likely have been easy to fit with an air-intercept radar (like that in the F-86K, which was designed for export, and was designed for 2x20mm cannon, which was the FJ-4's armament), and this would provide an improved capability for air-air combat for both the RAAF and the RAN (the FJ-4 could operate from ant carrier that the A-4C could).

* They were sometimes fitted with a small instrument package that fit in the upper intake lip, and this may have helped - see the FJ-4F thread. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rocket-boosted-fj-4-fury.7852/post-754305

The RAN purchased 39 De Havilland Sea Venom FAW.53s for Melbourne and Sydney which added to the 112 Sabres makes a total of 151 aircraft.

• Dimensions - Melbourne's hangars were 52ft wide and had a clearance of 17ft 6in.
  • FJ-2 & 3 Fury.
    • 37ft 6in Maximum Overall Length.
    • 22ft 6in Folded Wingspan.
    • 15ft 10 in Maximum Overall Height - which was with the wings folded.
  • FJ-4 & 4B Fury.
    • 36ft 3in Maximum Overall Length.
    • 27ft 6in Folded Wingspan.
    • 13ft 11in Maximum Overall Height - which was with the wings foled.
  • A-4F Skyhawk.
    • 40ft 3¼in Maximum Overall Length.
    • 27ft 6in None-folding Wingspan.
    • 15ft 0in Maximum Overall Height.
  • Sea Venom FAW.22 (I don't have the dimensions of the FAW.53).
    • 36ft 8in Maximum Overall Length.
    • 23ft 0in Folded Wingspan.
    • 9ft 10in Maximum Overall Height - which was with the wings folded.
      • That's for the Aquilon and as all Sea Venoms had the same folded wingspan, the height with wings folded was the same.
• Despite that the spotting on a CVA-19 class aircraft carrier was.
  • 106 Skyhawks .
    • And.
  • 78 FJ Furies regardless of the mark. I expected FJ-2 and 3 to be more than FJ-4 & 4B.
• Radars.
  • APG-30 FJ-2, 3 and 4 Fury and the FJ-4B Fury had provision for it.
  • APG-53 A-4F Skyhawk and according to the Internet search A-4G too.
  • APS-57 Sea Venom FAW.53 which in British service was known as the Airborne Interception Mk 21 (AI.21).
• First flight dates.
  • Commonwealth Sabre.
    • October 1951 the Australian Government signed a manufacturing licence for the Sabre.
    • 01.04.52 CA-26 Sabre prototype - planned.
    • 03.08.53 CA-26 Sabre prototype - actual.
    • 13.07.54 CA-27 Sabre production (Mk 30).
  • North American FJ Fury.
    • 10.02.51 The USN ordered 300 FJ-2s.
    • 08.03.51 The USN ordered 3 XFJ-2 prototypes.
    • 27.12.51 FJ-2 prototype.
    • 18.04.52 The USN ordered 389 FJ-3s.
    • 03.07.53 FJ-3 prototype.
    • 11.12.53 FJ-3 production.
    • 16.10.53 The USN ordered 2 XFJ-4 prototypes.
    • 28.10.54 FJ-4 prototype.
    • 00.02.55 FJ-4 deliveries begin.
    • 12.12.56 FJ-4B the source doesn't say whether it was the prototype or first production aircraft.
  • De Havilland Sea Venom.
    • 19.04.51 Sea Venom FAW.20 prototype.
    • 27.03.53 Sea Venom FAW.20 production.
    • 21.05.54 Sea Venom FAW.21 prototype.
    • 22.04.54 Sea Venom FAW.21 production - yes the production aircraft flew before the prototype.
    • 01.10.56 Sea Venom FAW.22 production.
    • 27.10.56 London Order 6970 for the purchase of 39 Sea Venom FAW.53.
      • The date may be a typo, because.
    • 01.03.55 first delivery (to Boscombe Down).
      • And.
    • 18.01.56 last delivery (to RNAS Stretton).
    • 23.08.55 No. 808 Squadron reformed at RNAS Culdrose and initially equipped with Sea Venom FAW.20s.
    • 27.02.56 The Sea Venom was formally accepted by the RAN.
    • 29.02.56 Sea Venoms first embarked on HMAS Melbourne.

The RAN may want an aircraft with a better radar than the APG-30. Maybe they'd want a navalised F-86D/K/L Sabre with its APG-36 or 37 radar. However, according to the Wikipedia article only 25% of its parts were shared with the standard F-86 and had J47 engines. F-86D's wingspan was the same as the extended wingspan of the FJ-2 & 3 and the F-86K's wingspan was the same as the FJ-4 & 4Bs extended wingspan. So both could be given wings that folded to 22ft 6in and 27ft 6in respectively. The F-86D was 40ft 3in long, which was more than all marks of swept-wing Fury and was nearly the same length as a Skyhawk.

Or they could do a FJ Fury/F-86D hybrid which was the nose of the F-86D attached to a FJ Fury. The RAAF might like their Sabres to have all-weather capability too.

Ninja'd you discussed the radar in your message, including suggesting the above and I didn't notice. Sorry!

As for engines, according to Gunston, Commonwealth encountered a lot of problems when it redesigned the Sabre for the Avon and the result was according to the RAAF's Chief of the Air Staff "What we got at the end of it all was a fighter that was about as good as the F-86F, but three years later and costing twice as much. I'll tell you: we'll never go through that again".

Therefore, I recommend sticking to the J65 (Sapphire), which North American has already redesigned the Fury to take, which saves Commonwealth time and money, in addition (hopefully) to get a better performing aircraft.

The RAAF's Canberras can have Sapphires too. The Martin-built Canberras had J-65s. Furthermore, I thought that at leas one of the 8 Canberra B.1 & B.2 prototypes had Sapphires instead of Avons, but I was mistaken. However, one production Canberra B.2 (WV787) was built with Sapphires and it was completed in 1952 a year before the first GAF-built Canberra was completed.

A minimum of 208 Avon engines were built in Australia for the 48 GAF Canberras and 112 Commonwealth Sabres. ITTL the minimum would be 247 Sapphires built in Australia for 48 GAF Canberras and 151 Commonwealth Furies.

However, I think they'd be called the Sabre and Sea Sabre in Australian service to avoid confusion with the Hawker Sea Furies operated by the RN & RAN.

The change in engines would mean no standardisation when it was operating with the RAF & RNZAF Canberras in FEAF, but it would mean standardisation with the USAF's Martin B-57 Canberras when they were serving in Vietnam.

It weakens my case for building the Avon-Mirage III. Amongst my arguments in favour were standardisation with the RAAF's Canberras and Sabres, standardisation with several RAF aircraft in FEAF and it could be built on Commonwealth's already existing Avon production line.

Maybe Armstrong-Siddeley/Bristol-Siddeley would propose a Sapphire-Mirage II as a rival to RR's Avon-Mirage II ITTL.

Bum! I didn't notice that you wrote that Commonwealth would find it easier to redesign the Fury for the Avon than redesigning the Sabre for the Avon.

 

[Pioneer]

In which case NOMISYRRUC, you might appreciate this rendition by the very talented Chris Cooper (Coops213).

Regards
Pioneer

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In which case NOMISYRRUC, you might appreciate this rendition by the very talented Chris Cooper (Coops213).

Regards
Pioneer

Yes, I do. Was that a real design? And if it was, why didn't the RAN buy it?

 

[Rule of cool]

Something I'd like to see is the 1964-65 decision to equip the Melbourne with S2s and A4s being made instead of the decision to scrap fixed wing flying from the carrier. This would mean much less than 27 Wessex would be ordered and 14 S2Es and 10 A/TA4Cs ordered.

Such an order may change how the RAN used the Melbourne in Vietnam. She may have entered the Market Time AO during her contribution to Operation Hardihood, the establishment of 1 ATF in Phuoc Tuy. Further the 1966 and 67 USN requests for a war cruise, as an ASW asset on Yankee Station may have been accepted, perhaps with the proviso that the RAN DDG on station be assigned as a permanent escort alongside whatever else the RAN sent to escort her.

Giving the Melbourne even a bit of war service would drastically strengthen the case for considerable upgrades and her eventual replacement.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Giving the Melbourne even a bit of war service would drastically strengthen the case for considerable upgrades and her eventual replacement.

I know you don't like it due their extra personnel requirements, but Centaur becomes available after 1966 and Hermes in 1970. Both had 2 steam catapults that were more powerful that Melbourne's single catapult, larger hangars and larger flight decks.

 

[Rule of cool]

I know you don't like it due their extra personnel requirements, but Centaur becomes available after 1966 and Hermes in 1970. Both had 2 steam catapults that were more powerful that Melbourne's single catapult, larger hangars and larger flight decks.

That's the conventional wisdom, and I'm a pretty conventional thinker at heart. However, that same conventional wisdom saw Australia introduce conscription into the Regulars for overseas service for the first time and prioritse the infantry commitment to Vietnam rather than more capital intensive but manpower efficient options like Armour, medium artillery, helicopters, combat aircraft and warships. If it was given sufficient priority due to Melbourne's efforts in Vietnam, I'm sure the RAN could find the manpower to put ~1,800 men on Hermes.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes, I do. Was that a real design? And if it was, why didn't the RAN buy it?

No, sadly not a real design NOMISYRRUC.
Coops, was kind enough to creat this beautiful dipiction in support of a joint WhatIf Alternative Story on another forum.
Note that the armament is two 30mm ADEN cannons, two Aim-9D and two SARH Aim-9C's.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

All of that is a huge ask from a tax and recruitment base of 10 million in 1960 and less than 13 in 1970 with full employment.

Combined response:

So you're objecting Australian to having 66% of that capability ITTL instead of 33% of that capability IOTL?

It is a big ask and I am objecting to having 66% capability, but I'm of the opinion that if you're gonna have any carriers in your navy, you need enough to actually have a carrier available ALL THE TIME. Otherwise a country that wants to start something with Oz just waits till the carrier(s) are in port and shipyard, and they've suddenly got at least 3 months where Oz has no carriers available at all.

As I'm still in fruitcake mode the plan could be for 3 aircraft carriers, with the third ship in place of some or all of the 3 cruisers, which were Australia, Hobart and Shropshire. That would give you your desired force of one ship fully-operational, one ship working-up and one ship in-refit/reserve. There'd be two operational and one training air group to support them. The first ship to go into refit/reserve would be Sydney (to bring her up to the same standard as Melbourne) upon the delivery of Brisbane.

Works for me!

No, sadly not a real design NOMISYRRUC.
Coops, was kind enough to creat this beautiful dipiction in support of a joint WhatIf Alternative Story on another forum.
Note that the armament is two 30mm ADEN cannons, two Aim-9D and two SARH Aim-9C's.

Huh, that's really a pretty decent All Weather Air Policing type plane clear into the 1970s, if not the 80s! Especially if you can update the IR Sidewinders later on. The Saber was a pretty good dogfighter clear up till the F-16 showed up...

It'd be interesting to build, since you'd need to swipe the AN/APQ-83 radar from F-8C or -D Crusaders and stuff that into the nose of a Dog or Hotel Saber... It would be easier to piggyback on the USN build of those radars, but the -C and -D were rebuilt into -K and -H respectively at some point, probably around the mid 1960s and then the last Crusaders were retired in 1976. So if you would wait until the mid 1960s to build the Monster Saber, it'd be possible to buy surplus radars instead of new builds.

But timing wise, I think you're going to have to buy new build radars in the late 1950s. 1960 or so, you can safely call it a substantial upgrade to an older airframe to keep it relevant for another decade. But by 1966 people would be looking at you really funny for trying to sell them an F-86 when there are Mach 2 fighters out there.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So you're objecting Australian to having 66% of that capability ITTL instead of 33% of that capability IOTL?

It is a big ask and I am objecting to having 66% capability, but I'm of the opinion that if you're gonna have any carriers in your navy, you need enough to actually have a carrier available ALL THE TIME. Otherwise a country that wants to start something with Oz just waits till the carrier(s) are in port and shipyard, and they've suddenly got at least 3 months where Oz has no carriers available at all.

The OTL RAN had more than a little help from its friends and it will ITTL too.

ANZUK Task Force Participating in FOTEX, March 1965
The Four Aircraft Carriers are Bulwark, Eagle, Melbourne & Victorious.
I Counted 11 "Frigoyers"​

FWIW (1) Every ship in that task force was flying the British White Ensign, because the Australian White Ensign wasn't introduced until 01.03.67 and the New Zealand White Ensign wasn't introduced until 13.06.68. AIUI in both cases it was so they weren't mistaken for RN warships when serving with the USN off Vietnam.

FWIW (2) Every sailor in that task force was still being paid in Pounds Shillings and Pence (LSD).

• Australia's Conversion Day (C-Day) was 14.02.66.
• New Zealand's Decimal Conversion Day (DC-Day) was 10.07.67.
• The UK's Decimal Day (D-Day) wouldn't be until 15.02.71.
• I've often thought that if the "Mother Country" had decimalised sooner Australia and New Zealand would have called their decimal currency the Pound instead of the Dollar.

If someone wants to start something with Oz before the end of 1971 there will be at least one RN strike carrier in the Far East Fleet and any war Oz gets into where they don't get British support will be one that the US Seventh Fleet will be involved in.

Also after Indonesia changed sides in the Cold War the only country that could start something with Oz was no longer a potential enemy. Plus said someone may not be able to wait until both RAN aircraft carriers are in dock to start said something. E.g. the Argentine Junta wasn't able to wait for more favourable conditions before invading the Falkland Islands.

AIUI the RAN's aircraft carriers weren't for home defence they were to help Australia to make a contribution to the efforts of its major allies (UK & USA) in South East Asia. E.g. (1) helping the UK deter Indonesia from attacking the British East Indies.

E.g. (2) IOTL RAN and RN Colossus/Majestic class aircraft carriers were rotated for the Korean War so the Far East Fleet had one aircraft carrier off the Korean coast at all times.

E.g. (3) ITTL the RAN may find it easier to send an aircraft carrier to Dixie and Yankee Stations with two aircraft carriers instead of one.

As I'm still in fruitcake mode the plan could be for 3 aircraft carriers, with the third ship in place of some or all of the 3 cruisers, which were Australia, Hobart and Shropshire. That would give you your desired force of one ship fully-operational, one ship working-up and one ship in-refit/reserve. There'd be two operational and one training air group to support them. The first ship to go into refit/reserve would be Sydney (to bring her up to the same standard as Melbourne) upon the delivery of Brisbane.

Works for me!

Glad to be of service.

I suggested two aircraft carriers because I was being conservative like @Rule of cool. Except my version of conservatism was to complete as much of the ADF's OTL plans as possible, rather than having more than what the ADF planned IOTL.

Despite what I've written to justify the OTL plan for two aircraft carriers rather than three, I wholeheartedly agree that three would be the ideal. Due to how we think they will be used, having three aircraft carriers won't require 50% more money and crucially men to maintain than a force of two aircraft carriers.

Furthermore, it's easy to do because two unfinished Majestic class aircraft carriers (Hercules and Leviathan) were available IOTL. I chose Leviathan because the Indian Navy purchased Hercules later IOTL.

The three cruisers that the RAN had were Australia, Hobart and Shropshire. The two Counties became overage in 1948 and 1949 respectively. Hobart was commissioned into the RN as HMS Apollo in 1936 and would become overage in 1956.

Therefore, the RAN could justify the acquisition of a third or even a fourth Colossus/Majestic as part of the 1952-55 Defence Programme as a replacements for these ships. IOTL Hobart was to be converted into a training ship to replace Australia. IIRC from contemporary editions of Jane's the conversion was in progress when it was abandoned as part of the middle 1950s cuts to the RAN.

ITTL the RAN could have acquired a fourth Colossus/Majestic to replace Australia as its training ship instead of converting Hobart. The plan being that it would become an operational aircraft carrier in wartime.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The OTL RAN had more than a little help from its friends and it will ITTL too.

*facepalm* Dammit, Scott, this thread is the 1960s, not the 2030s... Get your brain in the right era!!!

If someone wants to start something with Oz before the end of 1971 there will be at least one RN strike carrier in the Far East Fleet and any war Oz gets into where they don't get British support will be one that the US Seventh Fleet will be involved in.

Also after Indonesia changed sides in the Cold War the only country that could start something with Oz was no longer a potential enemy. Plus said someone may not be able to wait until both RAN aircraft carriers are in dock to start said something. E.g. the Argentine Junta wasn't able to wait for more favourable conditions before invading the Falkland Islands.

Granted there may be other pressures that prevent starting something with Oz when the carriers are all in port, but that's definitely going to be when someone will plan to start something.

Despite what I've written to justify the OTL plan for two aircraft carriers rather than three, I wholeheartedly agree that three would be the ideal. Due to how we think they will be used, having three aircraft carriers won't require 50% more money and crucially men to maintain than a force of two aircraft carriers.

Under the USN model, the ship still keeps close to full crew while in shipyard after a deployment. The Air Wing obviously won't be onboard, so you can let some of the support staff that are only needed to take care of the Air Wing loose (bakers, barbers, clothes-washers, etc), but I think we're still talking a minimum of 75% of the full crew remaining onboard to do work (which sucks in ways that I don't care to remember). Gonna keep all the engineers, all the various radar techs and gunners, they're all going to be doing repair work in addition to "our friends" the shipyard workers.

Remember, this is only planned to be about 6 months or so in shipyard, then drawing back up to full crew for the next 6 months as the ship and Air Wing work up to get ready to go out to sea. It's not like we're putting a ship into the yards for a couple of years for major upgrades like replacing or rebricking boilers.

How does the RN do it?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Message 4 where I suggested that given the length of time it took to get the Avon-Sabre into production the RAAF might as well have ordered Hunters from Commonwealth instead.

IOTL Hawker's rival to the Avon-Sabre was the P.1081. This was a development via the P.1052 of the P.1040 which entered service with the RN as the Sea Hawk in March 1953.

If the RAAF buys P.1081s instead of the Avon-Sabre then there's a good chance that the RAN will buy 39 navalised P.1081s instead of 39 Sea Venoms. That would increase the number built from 112 to 151. That may have the welcome side-effect of the RN buying navalised P.1081s instead of some or all of the Sea Hawks bought IOTL. The Sea Hawk was also used by the naval air arms of India, The Netherlands and West Germany. Therefore, it would be a win-win-win-win-win situation for all concerned.

Furthermore, the Sea Hawk was a few feet longer than the Sea Venom, but its folded wingspan was 13ft 4in rather than 23ft 0in, with the result that you can get at least 50% more on any given aircraft carrier. You could get three-abreast in the 52ft wide hangar of the Colossus/Majestic class without staggering with ease and four abreast in the 62ft wide hangars of a Centaur class without staggering. Although with the latter the clearances between the aircraft and hangar sides will be tight. For the Sea Venom it was two abreast on both ships without staggering.

IOTL the P.1040, P.1052, P.1081 prototypes and the production Sea Hawks had Nene engines, but the proposed production version of the P.1081 was to have the Tay. If the RAAF & RAN buying the P.1081 instead of the Sabre & Sea Venom results in the Sea Hawk users of OTL having P.1081s instead of some or all of them they will have Tay engines too.

Except the RAAF may still want Avon engines to standardise with its Canberras and avoid the extra costs in having two engine production lines instead of one. And as Hawker is already building an Avon-powered fighter (the Hunter) it might as well buy that aircraft because by the time Commonwealth had finished faffing about redesigning the P.1081 it could have put the Hunter into production.

There wasn't a Sea Hunter ITTL, but the RN did order 20 Sea Swifts with hooks (and AFIAK non-folding wings) for swept-wing jet trials and training. Therefore, with a bit of jiggery-pokery 20 Sea Hunters could have been bought instead and when they were cancelled in the middle 1950s defence cuts Hawker could have sold them to the RAN and who would order another 19 for a total of 39 as substitutes for the 39 Sea Venoms.

However, before you get excited it will be difficult to have Sea Hunter built instead of some of the Sea Hawks used by the OTL customers and impossible to have it built instead every Sea Hawk used by the OTL customers. The Sea Hunter won't be ready until 1955-56 and the Sea Hawk entered service with the RN in March 1953. That's when the first 800-Series squadron formed. The first production Sea Hawk F.1 flew on 14.11.51. Furthermore, the 434th and last Sea Hawk for the RN was delivered in 1956.

When Sea Hunter came up in one of the previous threads here or on Alternatehistory.com my guess (based on measuring the line drawings in Putnams) was that it would have had a folded wingspan about a foot narrower than the Sea Hawk. The extra foot would make it just possible to stow four abreast in the hangar of a Colossus/Majestic and four abreast with ease in the hangar of a Centaur.

Both aircraft have folded wingspans half as wide as the non-folding Skyhawk. Maybe the RAN would prefer to refurbish its Sea Hunters ITTL instead of buying Skyhawks because the increased numbers of the former will offset the increased capability of the latter.

Another thing is that the RAN may want its Sea Hunters to have an airborne interception radar. This could be done because IIRC Hawker did sketch designs for two-seat AAM-armed Hunters with AI radar, which were based on the Hunter trainer.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

However, before you get excited it will be difficult to have Sea Hunter built instead of some of the Sea Hawks used by the OTL customers and impossible to have it built instead every Sea Hawk used by the OTL customers. The Sea Hunter won't be ready until 1955-56 and the Sea Hawk entered service with the RN in March 1953. That's when the first 800-Series squadron formed. The first production Sea Hawk F.1 flew on 14.11.51. Furthermore, the 434th and last Sea Hawk for the RN was delivered in 1956.

Correction.

It won't be possible to build Sea Hunters instead of any of the RN's Sea Hawks, but it's easy-peasy for India, The Netherlands and West Germany to have Sea Hunters instead of their Sea Hawks.

The 30 Dutch and 64 German Sea Hawks were new FGA.6s and the circa 35 Sea Hawks bought by India were second-hand FGA.6s. The numbers are according to Norman Polmar's World Combat Aircraft Directory. According to my Internet search the Dutch and German Sea Hawks were ordered in 1956. Said internet search also said that India ordered 36 Sea Hawks in 1959 which consisted of 24 new and 12 refurbished ex-FAA aircraft.

The RNLNAS Sea Hunters would standardise with RNLAF's Land Hunters IOTL and the Indian Navy's Sea Hunters would standarise with the IAF's Land Hunters too. The Dutch Land Hunters were built under licence so the Sea Hunters built instead of the Sea Hawks may be built in The Netherlands too.

 

[Rule of cool]

Bear in mind that when it arrived in Australia the Sea Venom was the only all weather fighter in the region. There is no great need for bespoke aircraft that represent such great technology and finance risk and become a burden rather than an asset.

As for how many carriers, the 3:1 rule really applies to long distance prolonged deployment like RNs EoS or USN Med and West Pac deployments. In contrast the RAN rarely even went to the West Coast of Australia, staying mainly near home and doing exercises S E.A. 3 carriers aren't required for that, even 1 is a useful national asset.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

*facepalm* Dammit, Scott, this thread is the 1960s, not the 2030s... Get your brain in the right era!!!

Nay bother.

Granted there may be other pressures that prevent starting something with Oz when the carriers are all in port, but that's definitely going to be when someone will plan to start something.

Fair enough and the POD for the extra Australian defence spending could be that Indonesia doesn't change sides in the Cold War.

Under the USN model, the ship still keeps close to full crew while in shipyard after a deployment. The Air Wing obviously won't be onboard, so you can let some of the support staff that are only needed to take care of the Air Wing loose (bakers, barbers, clothes-washers, etc), but I think we're still talking a minimum of 75% of the full crew remaining onboard to do work (which sucks in ways that I don't care to remember). Gonna keep all the engineers, all the various radar techs and gunners, they're all going to be doing repair work in addition to "our friends" the shipyard workers.

Don't know. And I think it depends on the length of the refit.

Remember, this is only planned to be about 6 months or so in shipyard, then drawing back up to full crew for the next 6 months as the ship and Air Wing work up to get ready to go out to sea.

Not it isn't. Please don't tell me to remember, it's rude to me.

It's not like we're putting a ship into the yards for a couple of years for major upgrades like replacing or rebricking boilers.

That's exactly what it's like.

The first refit will be to bring Sydney to the same standard as Brisbane and Melbourne, which includes replacing the hydraulic catapult with a steam catapult and installing an angled flight deck. IIRC it took the Dutch 3 yeras to refit the Karel Doorman and Minas Gerais to that standard. The refit to install steam catapults on Centaur took two years.

Other refits will be for major upgrades like those that you suggested. IOTL Melbourne had its steam catapult lengthened in one of its OTL refits. Plus I hope they get things like CDS or one of its successors ITTL.

And I also said the third ship would be in refit/reserve. Therefore, it would be in reserve for several years at time when it wasn't having a lengthy refit.

How does the RN do it?

I refer you to my previous answer.

 

[BlackBat242]

The OTL RAN had more than a little help from its friends and it will ITTL too.

ANZUK Task Force Participating in FOTEX, March 1965
The Four Aircraft Carriers are Bulwark, Eagle, Melbourne & Victorious.
I Counted 11 "Frigoyers"​

View attachment 760782

I suggested two aircraft carriers because I was being conservative like @Rule of cool. Except my version of conservatism was to complete as much of the ADF's OTL plans as possible, rather than having more than what the ADF planned IOTL.

Despite what I've written to justify the OTL plan for two aircraft carriers rather than three, I wholeheartedly agree that three would be the ideal. Due to how we think they will be used, having three aircraft carriers won't require 50% more money and crucially men to maintain than a force of two aircraft carriers.

Furthermore, it's easy to do because two unfinished Majestic class aircraft carriers (Hercules and Leviathan) were available IOTL. I chose Leviathan because the Indian Navy purchased Hercules later IOTL.

The three cruisers that the RAN had were Australia, Hobart and Shropshire. The two Counties became overage in 1948 and 1949 respectively. Hobart was commissioned into the RN as HMS Apollo in 1936 and would become overage in 1956.

Therefore, the RAN could justify the acquisition of a third or even a fourth Colossus/Majestic as part of the 1952-55 Defence Programme as a replacements for these ships. IOTL Hobart was to be converted into a training ship to replace Australia. IIRC from contemporary editions of Jane's the conversion was in progress when it was abandoned as part of the middle 1950s cuts to the RAN.

ITTL the RAN could have acquired a fourth Colossus/Majestic to replace Australia as its training ship instead of converting Hobart. The plan being that it would become an operational aircraft carrier in wartime.

I would also have the RAN pick up Leviathan and have her completed with Melbourne, to Melbourne's design.

Sydney would also be as historic, but would get the "planned but canceled" "refit" to bring her up to Melbourne standard.

That would get the 3 carriers (all modified Majestics) - there could be one "deployed", one in post-deployment refit, and one in workups and serving as training carrier if needed - or for more a leisurely ops tempo, one "at sea on exercises", one in refit or training/working up, and one in short-term reserve.

HMAS Sydney fitting of steam catapult and Mark 12 arrester gear in Australia.
It was planned to modernise Sydney after Melbourne completed, but this plan was axed in the Menzies 53/54 cut backs.

‘53/’54 Jane’s Fighting Ships says “Upon delivery of HMAS Melbourne, HMAS Sydney to return to UK for modification with steam catapult, stronger arresting gear, and all other improvements of Melbourne”.


[ Note: Amphibious ship material moved to its own thread, found here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/alternate-post-ww2-ran-amphibious-fleet.45487/ ]

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

All of that is a huge ask from a tax and recruitment base of 10 million in 1960 and less than 13 in 1970 with full employment.

There is likely an opportunity to use the Vietnam commitment for a somewhat larger set of RAAF, RAN and even Army equipment fleets. Not having conscription would be a start, having a larger Army armour and medium artillery, RAAF and RAN effort to compensate. But this won't make Australia a great regional power, especially once the region settles down after Vietnam.

How about having the coup that deposed Sukarno fail. He still dies in 1970, but his successors keep Indonesia in the Soviet camp until the end of the Cold War. Would that work as a POD for maintaining Australian defence spending at IIRC 4% of GNP instead of being reduced to 3% of GNP?

 

[Scott Kenny]

And I also said the third ship would be in refit/reserve. Therefore, it would be in reserve for several years at time when it wasn't having a lengthy refit.

Uhm, the normal rotation for a ship is 6 months at sea, 6 months in shipyard fixing everything that broke while you were at sea (and doing whatever upgrades you can do in 6 months), and then 6 months getting ready to go back out to sea buy doing short trips in the local area. There isn't time to lay off and re-hire the entire crew in the 6 months while the ship is in the yards.

The only time you can reasonably lay off the whole crew is during a long refit, like when you're ripping out the boilers because it's finally time to get more than 3-4 years out of a re-bricking... We're buying ~20yo ships here and upgrading them, IIRC the rebricking timeline is 12/6/4/3/3/3etc. So at best we'd get ~4 years before needing to rebrick. Better to rip out the old boilers entirely and get 12 years on new boilers/firebricks out of them, then rebrick and get another 6 years. Look, ship is now almost 40 years old and it's time to replace her in the 1980s. Start the new designs for carriers around the time you rebrick the boilers in the mid 1970s, hopefully you can get the new ships built before you need to rebrick your old ships a second time.

So I guess in their initial rebuilds for entry into Oz service, it'd make sense to have a ship without a crew while you're gutting the ships, but later on you're going to need a crew for all 3 ships to keep them all in rotation... I'd propose buying the ships about 2-3 years apart, so that when they start needing major work again in 12 years you can lay off one crew then for however long a rebricking refit lasts.

Because of how the rotation works, any given ship would alternate which Air Wing they deployed with.

For sake of example, we'll start with HMAS Melbourne on January 1 1960 (completely hypothetical, I have no clue when Melbourne was actually deployed). She deploys out with Oz Air Wing 1, and goes bouncing around Singapore, Hong Kong, Macau, Manila, and back home around June 30, Air Wing 1 flies off on the 29th. July 1 she pulls into the shipyards for 6 months, upgrades radios and a few radars for the AA guns, redoes the deck non-skid, and a repairs bunch of other stuff. No need to even rebrick boilers this time around. December 31 she comes out of the shipyard and goes out on sea trials January 1. No Air Wing until all the repairs and upgrades are proven. An Air Wing flies on sometime around the end of April, and flies on and off for one to two week blocks of time as the whole ship does their pre-deployment workups. Since the OCU wing also needs to keep up their carrier quals, they will probably use a couple of the early times the ship needs an air wing instead of Air Wing 2 that will be deploying with the ship. July 1 1961 HMAS Melbourne deploys with Air Wing 2 and goes bouncing around Singapore, Burma, Sri Lanka, India, over to the Red Sea and back home around December 31.​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Bear in mind that when it arrived in Australia the Sea Venom was the only all weather fighter in the region. There is no great need for bespoke aircraft that represent such great technology and finance risk and become a burden rather than an asset.

If that's a reference to the FJ-3/4 Fury/F-86D Sabre hybrid and two-seat Sea Hunter with AI radar, that makes me wonder why the RAN didn't buy Sea Hawks instead of Sea Venoms which Melbourne could have operated in greater numbers.

I prefer the Sea Hunter to the Fury/Sabre hybrid. In that case it's the British taxpayer that's taking the technological and financial risk for the basic version with the money that was spent on the batch of 20 Sea Swifts to the cancellation of the RN order IOTL and the Australian taxpayer paying the balance with the money spent on its Sea Venoms IOTL.

It would have taken no longer to get the Hunter into licenced production in Australia that it did to get the Avon-Sabre into production, after taking into account he trouble Commonwealth had redesigning the Sabre. It's unlikely to be more expensive (e.g. they use the same engine) and may even be cheaper.

Actually, the Sea Hunters could have been built by Commonwealth too, increasing the number of aircraft and engines built in Australia from 112 to 151. Although taking the cancelled RN order for 20 Sea Hunters over and ordering another 19 from Hawker might be cheaper.

The bespoke two-seat FAW Sea Hunter with AI radar does involve some technical and financial risk. However, my opinion is that there less chance of a cockup on the scale of the Avon-Sabre. It's a hybrid of the Sea Hunter and the Hunter trainer. The former's built anyway ITTL and the latter's built anyway IOTL. Also some of the 112 Hunters built for the RAAF instead of the Sabre will be two-seat Hunters which will help it build the two-seat Sea Hunter. Plus the RN may want some two-seat Sea Hunters anyway. See below.

Plus it may not be bespoke because the Dutch, Indian and West German navies may prefer it to the single-seat Sea Hunter. The RN operated scores of single and two-seat Hunters as trainer IOTL, which may well be single and two-seat Sea Hunters ITTL which unlike the Land Hunters of OTL can use for deck landing training.

As for how many carriers, the 3:1 rule really applies to long distance prolonged deployment like RNs EoS or USN Med and West Pac deployments. In contrast the RAN rarely even went to the West Coast of Australia, staying mainly near home and doing exercises S.E.A. 3 carriers aren't required for that, even 1 is a useful national asset.

You're the expert and I'm the low grade enthusiast. Except, the expert that wants a RAN aircraft carrier to do some tours tour on Dixie and Yankee stations in the Vietnam War. Meanwhile, the low grade enthusiast half-remembers reading a defence almanac written circa 1974 saying that Melbourne spent 3 months of every year at Singapore or with SEATO or both. However, not long afterwards the Whitlam Government withdrew most of the remaining Australian forces from Malaysia-Singapore (all that remained was the 2 Mirage squadrons) and SEATO broke up later in the 1970s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Link to Message 186.

You're writing about routine maintenance that the two ships in commission will have. I'm writing about major refits that the third ship in refit/reserve will have. You're comparing apples and oranges. Please read the sections of Message 183 that you didn't quote. I spent a great deal of time mansplaining it to you and frankly, I don't understand why you don't understand what I wrote.

Melbourne was commissioned in 1955 in the UK IOTL. Her crew was provided by Vengeance which paid off in the UK and was returned to the RN.

ITTL Brisbane will be commissioned in the UK around 1955 too. Her crew will be provided by Sydney which will pay off in the UK, but instead of being returned to the RN, she'll be towed to a British shipyard to be refitted to the same standard as Melbourne IOTL and hopefully then some.

This refit will include fitting a steam catapult and an angled flight deck. The angle of the flight deck may be larger than the one fitted to Melbourne and Brisbane. As you were previously told it took 3 years to refit the Dutch Karel Doorman (1955-58) and Brazilian Minas Gerais I1957-60) to that standard. You were also told that it took 2 years to fit a pair of steam catapults to Centaur (1956-58) which already had an angled flight deck.

I want the refit to include replacing her DC electrical system with an AC one too. Furthermore, I want a Type 984 radar, CDS and DPT to be fitted as well. That will be expensive, but given what it allowed the squadron of Scimitars on Victorious to do, the money will be well spent. I don't remember the numbers, but in exercises with the USN they shot down over three-quarters of the attacking aircraft and drove off the rest. ITTL she'll recommission in 1958 with a squadron of 12 Sea Hunters either with or without AI radar.

Melbourne pays off in 1958 to provide the crew for Sydney. She has a major refit and then spends some time in reserve before recommissioning to relieve Brisbane. This refit includes fitting a Type 984 radar, CDS and DPT. She may also have the angle of her angled flight deck increased. It depends upon whether Sydney had it done in her 1955-58 refit. I don't recall whether she was completed with a DC or AC electrical system, but she'll get the latter ITTL if she was completed with the former. The length of the refit and the period in reserve depend upon how long it takes to fit the new equipment.

Brisbane pays off in 1961 to provide the crew for Melbourne. She has a major refit and then spends some time in reserve before recommissioning to relieve Sydney. Except ADA's fitted instead of CDS and a Type 984M radar with solid-state electronic components is fitted instead of the Type 984 with vacuum tubes. Also if she was completed with a DC electrical system (as I think Melbourne was) it would have been replaced by an AC system.

Sydney pays off in 1964 to provide the crew for Brisbane. At this point she's 16 years old and has the equivalent of an American FRAM I or SLEP refit. ADA may be fitted to replace the CDS and the Type 984 radar may be replaced by a Type 984M.

Melbourne pays off in 1967 to provide the crew for Sydney. At this point she's 12 years old and has a mid-life refit. ADA may be fitted to replace the CDS and the Type 984 radar may be replaced by a Type 984M.

Brisbane pays off in 1970 to provide the crew for Melbourne. At this point she's 15 years old and has the equivalent of an American FRAM I or SLEP refit. She may have the Type 984M radar and ADA replaced by the Type 988 radar and the second-generation ADAWS.

And so on and so on until they're replaced in the 1980s.

Meanwhile the two ships in commission will be having shorter refits of the type that you describe.

I thought that I'd made it clear enough in Message 183. Have I made it clear enough now?

EDIT: 1

One of the points of having one out of three ships in long refit or reserve at all times is to make the hulls & machinery take longer to wear out.

Edit: 2 Angled Flight Decks

IOTL

• Melbourne was completed in 1955 with a 5½ degree AFD.
• Bonaventure was completed in 1957 with a 7½ degree AFD.
• Vikrant was completed in 1961 with a 7½ degree AFD.

ITTL

• Brisbane was completed in 1955 with a 5½ degree AFD too.
• Sydney was fitted with a 7½ degree AFD in her 1955-58 refit.
• Melbourne had the angle of her flight deck increased to 7½ degrees in her 1958-61 refit.
• Brisbane had the angle of her flight deck increased to 7½ degrees in her 1961-64 refit.

However, the Dutch rebuilt Karel Doorman and Minas Gerais more thoroughly than any other ships of the Colossus and Majestic classes. This included installing 8½ degree angled flight decks.

Therefore, the RAN might fit 8½ degree AFDs to its aircraft carriers in refits 1955-64 ITTL rather than 7½ degree AFDs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Because the Navy I served in literally does not operate that way.

There have been reports of carriers and other ships locked in the shipyards for 4+ years, junior sailors assigned to a ship THAT NEVER WENT TO SEA. And trapped in a nightmare of no functioning heads, inoperative aircon, and still forced to live aboard ship.

edit: fixed tense

 

[Archibald]

France had Sea Venoms too but never flew them out of Arromanches despite a modernization in 1957. The ship went to the breakers in 1974.

 

[Rule of cool]

From 1956 to 1967 Melbourne had an annual refit of about 4 months starting in September, and she tended to spend about 3 months 'up top', which of course leaves about 5 months where she was available for sea to do other things such as training, exercises at home, disaster relief etc. In addition, in April 1982 Hermes was 2 weeks into a 6-week refit, but sailed for war in 5 days. Certainly, the RAN could incorporate a couple of 'patrols' off Vung Tau in 1966 and a single 4-6 month deployment on Yankee station if need be.

By the same token the 3:1 rule doesn't quite cut it either, RANs 3 DDGs wasn't enough to keep 1 off Vietnam for years, a Daring DD had to do a tour to give the DDGs a break. Similarly, the USN was willing to accept the shortcomings of the Melbourne in order to have it as an ASW carrier for a single deployment, likely as it would give similar USN assets a break to catch up.

The idea that a navy has to have 2 or 3 carriers is somewhat overstated, having one is a major national asset if it kept on a reasonably short leash most of the time.

I prefer the Sea Hunter to the Fury/Sabre hybrid. In that case it's the British taxpayer that's taking the technological and financial risk for the basic version with the money that was spent on the batch of 20 Sea Swifts to the cancellation of the RN order IOTL and the Australian taxpayer paying the balance with the money spent on its Sea Venoms IOTL.

The British taxpayer had access to one of the world's largest aviation industries and a tax base maybe 4 times the size of Australia's, they were far more able to handle these risks than lil' ol' 'straya.

That said I don't know why the RAN selected the Sea Venom over the Sea Hawk, I suspect the tight integration with the RN would be behind it. That would be why they didn't select a US aircraft, whereas Canada did.

 

[Rule of cool]

How about having the coup that deposed Sukarno fail. He still dies in 1970, but his successors keep Indonesia in the Soviet camp until the end of the Cold War. Would that work as a POD for maintaining Australian defence spending at IIRC 4% of GNP instead of being reduced to 3% of GNP?

A hostile and confrontational Indonesia, in whatever form, would keep Australian military expenditure high and likely develop all sorts of nation building as the UK and US withdrew from the region by the 70s.

As it was Indonesia was friendly enough to allow RAAF Mirages to land in Indonesia on their ferry flight to Malayasia in 1968 and accepted 23 donated Avon Sabres in 1973.

 

[Scott Kenny]

From 1956 to 1967 Melbourne had an annual refit of about 4 months starting in September, and she tended to spend about 3 months 'up top', which of course leaves about 5 months where she was available for sea to do other things such as training, exercises at home, disaster relief etc.

That's not a word/phrase that the USN uses. Can you explain that in "I'm a sleep-deprived idiot" please? Post refit sea trials?

By the same token the 3:1 rule doesn't quite cut it either, RANs 3 DDGs wasn't enough to keep 1 off Vietnam for years, a Daring DD had to do a tour to give the DDGs a break. Similarly, the USN was willing to accept the shortcomings of the Melbourne in order to have it as an ASW carrier for a single deployment, likely as it would give similar USN assets a break to catch up.

The idea that a navy has to have 2 or 3 carriers is somewhat overstated, having one is a major national asset if it kept on a reasonably short leash most of the time.

Correct, because there's small possibilities of the two ships that should be deployable both having a "can't leave the pier" problem. It's even happened to the UK that out of six SSNs they had NONE available to go to sea. Two were in a scheduled refit, the pair working up to deploy were not able to leave the pier and the two that were supposed to be at sea were both broken.

So you really need like 9-12 in order to "guarantee" having one carrier out and you'd normally have 3-4 carriers out.

 

[Rule of cool]

That's not a word/phrase that the USN uses. Can you explain that in "I'm a sleep-deprived idiot" please? Post refit sea trials?

RAN slang for north of Australia, particularly in S.E.A. waters.

What do the USN call food? RAN calls it scran, ie S#!t Cooked by RAN.

 

[Rule of cool]

Correct, because there's small possibilities of the two ships that should be deployable both having a "can't leave the pier" problem. It's even happened to the UK that out of six SSNs they had NONE available to go to sea. Two were in a scheduled refit, the pair working up to deploy were not able to leave the pier and the two that were supposed to be at sea were both broken.

So you really need like 9-12 in order to "guarantee" having one carrier out and you'd normally have 3-4 carriers out.

That happened here a few times in recent years/decades with no ships available to respond to Cyclone emergencies.

However, these risks can and should be weighed against their mitigation. Having 2 or 3 carriers that we can't possibly afford or man isn't really a practical position for the Australian Government, but that doesn't mean that the capability afforded by a single carrier isn't a valuable strategic asset in a regional context.

 

[Rule of cool]

Something just occurred to me.

If Britain didn't declare manned fighters obsolescent and developed the Lightning into a fighter-bomber that the RAAF might be interested in in 1960-61 the RAAF still wouldn't buy it. That's because without the British declaring manned fighters obsolescent the RAAF would likely have gone ahead to buy the 30 F104s authorised in early 1957. This would pretty much lock the RAAF into the F104, shutting out all other types for a decade.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

RAN slang for north of Australia, particularly in S.E.A. waters.

What do the USN call food? RAN calls it scran, ie S#!t Cooked by RAN.

FWIW in the North East of England scran means food too.

 

[Pioneer]

I know you don't like it due their extra personnel requirements, but Centaur becomes available after 1966 and Hermes in 1970. Both had 2 steam catapults that were more powerful that Melbourne's single catapult, larger hangars and larger flight decks.

I like the idea of replacing Melbourne & Sydney with Centaur and Hermes. Undoubtedly, the RAN would have seen and appreciated the shortcomings of the small sized, small aircraft lifts, and weakening catapults and inherent small flight deck of the Majestic-class.
The two steam catapults is a real thing, as far as I'm concerned, especially in terms of battle damage, let alone surged aircraft operations.
The RAN must have appreciated better than anyone else, that their Majestic-class carriers were going to issues with operating more modern and capable aircraft and let's face it, the A-4G Skyhawk's were a nacessary compromise.
By purchasing Centaur after 1966, would negate the decision to equip HMAS Melbourne with Grumman S-2's and Douglas A-4F and the necessary supporting $ modifications $.

Scott Kenny:

But by 1966 people would be looking at you really funny for trying to sell them an F-86 when there are Mach 2 fighters out there.

And that's why I was thinking of this replacing the CA-29 Sea Dingo - with another beautiful depiction of artwork by Chris Cooper to my request:

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Grey Havoc]

This would pretty much lock the RAAF into the F104, shutting out all other types for a decade.

Then again, the politicians & bureaucrats might have taken fright at the Starfighter's subsequent well publicised issues (including the extremely dodgy behind the scenes deals!).

 

[Scott Kenny]

What do the USN call food? RAN calls it scran, ie S#!t Cooked by RAN.

usually "chow"

And of course various different meals have their own names. Creamed beef on toast is "Shit on a shingle", burgers are "sliders" for how the meat is so full of fat that they slide back and forth on the griddle, etc