Alternative RAAF fleets.

[Rule of cool]

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!).

A 1958 order would likely mean a 1960 delivery, which would be too early for those problems to be realised. The RAAF will need ~100 'fighters' and despite ordering the Mirages in 2 batches did have a continuous build so I suspect the second order might be placed in 1960-61 as the first batch is just entering service, which again is pretty early for the problems to come to light. In any case our boys love a good bribe as much as the next sticky-fingered politician and will cover the bribes up with the best of them.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The OTL RAN maintained two aircraft carriers in commission from 1952 to 1958 and one-and-a-half aircraft carriers in commission from 1962 to 1973 IOTL.

It's one-and-a-half from 1962 to 1973 because Sydney's crew was about half the size of Melbourne's crew. Contemporary editions of Jane's say that Naval Reserve personnel would provide the balance of the ship's crew in an emergency.

Therefore, maintaining a force of two ships in commission and a third in refit/reserve from 1952 to at least 1973 isn't that much of a stretch.

 

[Rule of cool]

The OTL RAN maintained two aircraft carriers in commission from 1952 to 1958 and one-and-a-half aircraft carriers in commission from 1962 to 1973 IOTL.

It's one-and-a-half from 1962 to 1973 because Sydney's crew was about half the size of Melbourne's crew. Contemporary editions of Jane's say that Naval Reserve personnel would provide the balance of the ship's crew in an emergency.

Therefore, maintaining a force of two ships in commission and a third in refit/reserve from 1952 to at least 1973 isn't that much of a stretch.

I think calling Sydney half a carrier is a bit of a stretch; she lacked combat capability until 1967 when she embarked 2-4 Wessex in order to economise on her warship escort to Vietnam. She was basically a troopship that could land men and materiel in austere conditions, but even then it took a couple of days to unload a battalion at Vung Tau harbour using landing craft and barges until the 1968 refit added cranes and embarked landing craft and got that down to a single night. IIUC her crew steadily reduced as a result of her Vietnam experience even has her Vietnam turnaround time dropped dramatically.

 

[Pioneer]

Sorry gents, but this notion of the RAN requiring three carriers, I use to think myself, was paramount to be effective. But I've come to appreciate that the requirements for three carriers - one deployed, one refitting and one training, is in essence idyllic at best and if you're a superpower.
I guess the French are a perfect example of this with their single carrier Charles de Gaulle, which appears to be able to conduct both power projection and participate in launching strikes anywhere and everywhere.
So, my notion is that two carriers would be sufficient, as the RAN isn't until recently, been involved in power projection and antagonism halfway around the world. Let's face it, the challange to Australia's military capabilities until the 1990's, when countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China began their ascendancy in terms of economics, education and indigenous heavy arms manufacturing.
I've always liked the idea of Australia collaborating with the French in designing and building an improved Clemenceau-class - two for France and two for Australia in the 1970's, given that the British seemed to have lost the plot, focus and direction in their CVA-01 program.
Failing this, I'd be happy if the Australian government/RAN built two SCS/Príncipe de Asturias-class light carriers, the RAN FAA improvising and adapting to V/STOL operations and aircraft like the Sea Harrier......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I think calling Sydney half a carrier is a bit of a stretch; she lacked combat capability until 1967 when she embarked 2-4 Wessex in order to economise on her warship escort to Vietnam. She was basically a troopship that could land men and materiel in austere conditions, but even then it took a couple of days to unload a battalion at Vung Tau harbour using landing craft and barges until the 1968 refit added cranes and embarked landing craft and got that down to a single night. IIUC her crew steadily reduced as a result of her Vietnam experience even has her Vietnam turnaround time dropped dramatically.

You're missing the point.

• Your objection to my proposal for keeping two aircraft carriers (which I modified to three after the intervention of @Scott Kenny) was based on the personnel requirements.
  • It wasn't based on Sydney's lack of combat capability, which can be addressed.
• You said that Australia couldn't recruit the extra sailors for the second aircraft carrier.
  • Sydney was half an aircraft carrier because her crew from 1962 to 1973 was half the size of Melbourne's.
• So the RAN needs about 600 more sailors 1962-73 ITTL than it did IOTL to have two aircraft carriers in full commission.

In my timeline Sydney was been refitted to the same standard as Melbourne after Brisbane (the third aircraft carrier) was completed. That provided the combat capability that you say she lacked. However, if the RAN doesn't buy Leviathan ITTL then Sydney can be modernised 1958-62 which is when she was in reserve IOTL.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Sorry gents, but this notion of the RAN requiring three carriers, I use to think myself, was paramount to be effective. But I've come to appreciate that the requirements for three carriers - one deployed, one refitting and one training, is in essence idyllic at best and if you're a superpower.
I guess the French are a perfect example of this with their single carrier Charles de Gaulle, which appears to be able to conduct both power projection and participate in launching strikes anywhere and everywhere.
So, my notion is that two carriers would be sufficient, as the RAN isn't until recently, been involved in power projection and antagonism halfway around the world. Let's face it, the challange to Australia's military capabilities until the 1990's, when countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, India and China began their ascendancy in terms of economics, education and indigenous heavy arms manufacturing.
I've always liked the idea of Australia collaborating with the French in designing and building an improved Clemenceau-class - two for France and two for Australia in the 1970's, given that the British seemed to have lost the plot, focus and direction in their CVA-01 program.
Failing this, I'd be happy if the Australian government/RAN built two SCS/Príncipe de Asturias-class light carriers, the RAN FAA improvising and adapting to V/STOL operations and aircraft like the Sea Harrier......

Regards
Pioneer

Although I disagree with your opinion there's not need to be sorry for it.

However, when people begin a sentence with "sorry" they're not sorry. It's very much like saying "With respect" at the start of a sentence when it's really without respect. And saying "Do you want to" and "Don't you think" when person saying it means "I want you to" and "You should think". I find both insulting. I prefer to be told to do it and to think it directly rather than indirectly.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 173.

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.

FWIW and as I expect you know Melbourne's air group was originally 22 aircraft consisting of 8 Sea Venoms, 12 Gannets and 2 SAR helicopters. Enough Gannets and Sea Venoms were purchased to maintain an air group of that size until the end of the 1960s.

The reason why I want the RAN to buy P.1081 or Sea Hunter, is that, while they are longer than the Sea Venom, they can be folded into much smaller packages. Therefore, Melbourne could accommodate 50-to-100% more P.1081s or Sea Hunters than Sea Venoms.

I want Melbourne to kept as a fixed wing carrier too. However, I want the ran to buy enough Gannet AEW.3s to support a flight of 4 aircraft instead of bringing forward the order for Skyhawks and Trackers.

Finally, I want a SLEP programme for the Gannets and Sea Hunters instead of the OTL orders for Skyhawks and Trackers. One Gannet takes two-thirds the space of a Tracker and two Sea Hunters take the same space as one Skyhawk. The Gannet was in one way more advanced than the Tracker because the Gannet had two turpobrop engines (driving one contra-rotating propeller) and the Tracker had two piston engines. The greater numbers of the former counteract the greater capability of the latter.

 

[Pioneer]

Although I disagree with your opinion there's not need to be sorry for it.

However, when people begin a sentence with "sorry" they're not sorry. It's very much like saying "With respect" at the start of a sentence when it's really without respect. And saying "Do you want to" and "Don't you think" when person saying it means "I want you to" and "You should think". I find both insulting. I prefer to be told to do it and to think it directly rather than indirectly.

Wow NOMISYRRUC, that's a little philosophical.......

Regards
Pioneer

 

[H_K]

Any chance both HMAS Sydney (early 70s) and HMAS Melbourne (late 70s/early 80s) could have been replaced with a pair of new build carriers?

I'm picturing a fairly cheap design, much like the US Sea Control Ship / Vertical Support Ship

• Very efficient manning (ship's crew of 600-700 sailors)
• Gas turbines. Maybe a COGAS setup as on HMS Bristol with 2 GTs for boost and 2 steam boilers for cruise + catapult launches.
• Mixed air group of 18-20 fast jets - second hand USN Crusaders (fighter/CAP) and A-4G Skyhawks. Both types could be replaced by F/A-18s in the late 80s.
• Likely only 1 C13 catapult
• One carrier serving as fleet flagship (with jets), the other in refit or as transport / assault ship with limited aviation assets (a few RAN Wessex or RAAF Hueys)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Any chance both HMAS Sydney (early 70s) and HMAS Melbourne (late 70s/early 80s) could have been replaced with a pair of new build carriers?

Certainly possible, if we could convince the politicians that it was worthwhile...

I'm picturing a fairly cheap design, much like the US Sea Control Ship / Vertical Support Ship

• Very efficient manning (ship's crew of 600-700 sailors)
• Gas turbines. Maybe a COGAS setup as on HMS Bristol with 2 GTs for boost and 2 steam boilers for cruise + catapult launches.
• Mixed air group of 18-20 fast jets - second hand USN Crusaders (fighter/CAP) and A-4G Skyhawks. Both types could be replaced by F/A-18s in the late 80s.
• Likely only 1 C13 catapult
• One carrier serving as fleet flagship (with jets), the other in refit or as transport / assault ship with limited aviation assets (a few RAN Wessex or RAAF Hueys)

A cheap design could probably work, especially if the US VSS designs were adopted as the NATO Standard CVS...

 

[Rule of cool]

Part of Message 173.

FWIW and as I expect you know Melbourne's air group was originally 22 aircraft consisting of 8 Sea Venoms, 12 Gannets and 2 SAR helicopters. Enough Gannets and Sea Venoms were purchased to maintain an air group of that size until the end of the 1960s.

The reason why I want the RAN to buy P.1081 or Sea Hunter, is that, while they are longer than the Sea Venom, they can be folded into much smaller packages. Therefore, Melbourne could accommodate 50-to-100% more P.1081s or Sea Hunters than Sea Venoms.

I want Melbourne to kept as a fixed wing carrier too. However, I want the ran to buy enough Gannet AEW.3s to support a flight of 4 aircraft instead of bringing forward the order for Skyhawks and Trackers.

Finally, I want a SLEP programme for the Gannets and Sea Hunters instead of the OTL orders for Skyhawks and Trackers. One Gannet takes two-thirds the space of a Tracker and two Sea Hunters take the same space as one Skyhawk. The Gannet was in one way more advanced than the Tracker because the Gannet had two turpobrop engines (driving one contra-rotating propeller) and the Tracker had two piston engines. The greater numbers of the former counteract the greater capability of the latter.

You're running into the firm limits of the Majestic class size and therefore Airgroup size and composition. I suspect that AEW is a 'nice to have' in the RAN in the 60s when you can only fit 22 aircraft on the Melbourne.

I don't know why the RAN selected the Sea Venom, if it had something to do with a Night-All Weather requirement that needed to be met. If it had something the RAN needed then changing it out would require an aircraft that can do the NAW thing in the mid 50s, which I suspect is a pretty short list.

 

[Pioneer]

Rule of cool:

You're running into the firm limits of the Majestic class size and therefore Airgroup size and composition. I suspect that AEW is a 'nice to have' in the RAN in the 60s when you can only fit 22 aircraft on the Melbourne.

I don't know, given the constraints of twenty two aircraft, wouldn't an AEW asset like the Gannet AEW.3 complement such a small air complement? The airborne patrolling of the Gannet AEW.3 would negate a lot of volume, fuel, maintance hours of unnecessary CAP's, literally acting as a force-multiplier.

Rule of cool:

I don't know why the RAN selected the Sea Venom, if it had something to do with a Night-All Weather requirement that needed to be met. If it had something the RAN needed then changing it out would require an aircraft that can do the NAW thing in the mid 50s, which I suspect is a pretty short list.

I would suspect this prodomantly had a lot to do with Australia's/RAN's then idelogical loyalty to all things British/Royal Navy, including perceptions of interoperability. A seeming ideology which only seriously changed with the then daring purchasing of the modified Charles F. Adams-class DDG's in 1960's. Even then, one needs to appreciate that that was done somewhat reluctantly, given that the RAN's preference was for a modified County-class, which the British could not/didn't want to facilitate.
As such, this British reliance, limited the selection of carrier-based aircraft Australian could then select.....
I'm also guessing that the RAN might have still had a hang up about night intrusion against it's fleet, as a consequence of WWII and Japanese night time attacks......(just a thought).

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

I don't know, given the constraints of twenty two aircraft, wouldn't an AEW asset like the Gannet AEW.3 complement such a small air complement? The airborne patrolling of the Gannet AEW.3 would negate a lot of volume, fuel, maintance hours of unnecessary CAP's.
Literally acting as a force-multiplier.

The Melbourne's role up to the early 70s was an ASW carrier, the fighters were embarked in very small numbers, far less than the ASW compliment and were a support capability to the ASW role; chasing off shadowing aircraft or attacking minor ships that got too close etc. In 1965 Melbourne's SEATO task was leading an ASW Task Force in the Sulu Sea. RN carriers, with their larger numbers of more capable fighters could make use of AEW but the 60s Melbourne couldn't.

70s Melbourne might be different, but she is still a small ship for a carrier.

 

[Pioneer]

The Melbourne's role up to the early 70s was an ASW carrier, the fighters were embarked in very small numbers, far less than the ASW compliment and were a support capability to the ASW role; chasing off shadowing aircraft or attacking minor ships that got too close etc. In 1965 Melbourne's SEATO task was leading an ASW Task Force in the Sulu Sea. RN carriers, with their larger numbers of more capable fighters could make use of AEW but the 60s Melbourne couldn't.

70s Melbourne might be different, but she is still a small ship for a carrier.

Good point. I guess I'm still thinking along the lines of a more independent Australia vs rusted on alliances.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Melbourne's role up to the early 70s was an ASW carrier, the fighters were embarked in very small numbers, far less than the ASW compliment and were a support capability to the ASW role; chasing off shadowing aircraft or attacking minor ships that got too close etc. In 1965 Melbourne's SEATO task was leading an ASW Task Force in the Sulu Sea. RN carriers, with their larger numbers of more capable fighters could make use of AEW but the 60s Melbourne couldn't.

70s Melbourne might be different, but she is still a small ship for a carrier.

It's still really useful to have AEW onboard for an ASW carrier. Gives you a much better view of any shadowing aircraft like Bear MPAs or whatever the Chinese use.

Also means you can stick with deck-launched intercepts which reduces landing risks on your limited number of fighters.

 

[Rule of cool]

Good point. I guess I'm still thinking along the lines of a more independent Australia vs rusted on alliances.....

Regards
Pioneer

It's so long ago now that it's difficult to imagine that Australian troops were part of an integral part if a standing Commonwealth brigade with a specified tasking in the event of WW3. The same for the RAAF and RAN.

One reason I'm so enamoured with Britain's stuff and a residual EoS role is that it gives us foreign policy choice, if we're not keen on a US position we can go with the British. Similarly with supply of kit we could go either way if Britain was still a confident power with a limited world role and comprehensive arms catalogue and keep them both on their toes.

 

[Pioneer]

It's still really useful to have AEW onboard for an ASW carrier. Gives you a much better view of any shadowing aircraft like Bear MPAs or whatever the Chinese use.

Also means you can stick with deck-launched intercepts which reduces landing risks on your limited number of fighters.

Not much different to that of the later RN Through-Deck Cruiser (aka Invincible-class), I guess, and their justification for developing the Sea Harrier.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Here's a question, presumably with no wrong answer.

Would you personally prefer the RAN to have 2 Majestics in whatever spec or the Hermes post 1966 refit then refitted for the RAN?

 

[starviking]

I would suspect this prodomantly had a lot to do with Australia's/RAN's then idelogical loyalty to all things British/Royal Navy, including perceptions of interoperability. A seeming ideology which only seriously changed with the then daring purchasing of the modified Charles F. Adams-class DDG's in 1960's. Even then, one needs to appreciate that that was done somewhat reluctantly, given that the RAN's preference was for a modified County-class, which the British could not/didn't want to facilitate.

The RAN request for the modified County-class was much more a new ship: no gas turbines, 3 Wessex, US SAM in place of Sea Slug.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Here's a question, presumably with no wrong answer.

Would you personally prefer the RAN to have 2 Majestics in whatever spec or the Hermes post 1966 refit then refitted for the RAN?

I'm sure no-one will be surprised by my preference for 2 Majestics... With an angled deck like Coral Sea, ~10.5 degrees.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm sure no-one will be surprised by my preference for 2 Majestics... With an angled deck like Coral Sea, ~10.5 degrees.

Is it possible to go thst much of an angle on a Majestic? I think at least 1 got 8 degrees but most were 5.5.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Is it possible to go thst much of an angle on a Majestic? I think at least 1 got 8 degrees but most were 5.5.

Sadly, the shorter a hull is, the more angle you need. It'd be about as big a refit as the Coral Sea's SCB-110A in terms of scope.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Is it possible to go that much of an angle on a Majestic? I think at least 1 got 8 degrees but most were 5.5.

According to the research I did for this thread.

• 8.5 degrees - Karen Doorman (later Veinticinco de Mayo) and Minas Gerais.
• 7.5 degrees - Bonaventure and Vikrant.
• 5.5 degrees - Melbourne.

That's according to Norman Friedman and/or Leo Marriott. FWIW I thought Bonaventure and Vikrant were 5.5 degrees too.

The above is why Sydney would have been fitted with a 7.5 degree angled flight deck (rather than 5.5 degrees) if she had been rebuilt after Brisbane was completed in my timeline (where the RAN has 3 aircraft carriers) or been rebuilt 1958-62 instead of spending those years in reserve.

 

[Scott Kenny]

According to the research I did for this thread.

• 8.5 degrees - Karen Doorman (later Veinticinco de Mayo) and Minas Gerais.
• 7.5 degrees - Bonaventure and Vikrant.
• 5.5 degrees - Melbourne.

That's according to Norman Friedman and/or Leo Marriott. FWIW I thought Bonaventure and Vikrant were 5.5 degrees too.

The above is why Sydney would have been fitted with a 7.5 degree angled flight deck (rather than 5.5 degrees) if she had been rebuilt after Brisbane was completed in my timeline (where the RAN has 3 aircraft carriers) or been rebuilt 1958-62 instead of spending those years in reserve.

Ah, thank you!

The reason I want a bigger angle is to make as much space on the starboard bow for either catapult or deck park as possible.

Yes, I know the Air Wing is small enough there's little need for a deck park while conducting flight ops. But you still need space to have your DLI sitting ready.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You're running into the firm limits of the Majestic class size and therefore Airgroup size and composition. I suspect that AEW is a 'nice to have' in the RAN in the 60s when you can only fit 22 aircraft on the Melbourne.

I'm currently sitting in Redcar Library with their copy of Jane's 1981-82 on the desk to the left of my laptop. It's open on Pages 36 and 37. Page 37 is devoted to Melbourne.

Aircraft: A mix of A4G Skyhawk jet fighters, S2G Tracker A/S aircraft and Sea King Mk 50 A/S helicopters. (see Aircraft notes)

The Aircraft Notes Say.

The aircraft complement formerly comprised eight Sea Venom Mk 53 fighters, 16 Gannet Mk 1 turbo-prop A/S aircraft and 2 Sycamore helicopters.
[TOTAL: 26 aircraft]

The complement changed twice before 1967 to ten Sea Venoms, ten Gannets and two Sycamores [TOTAL: 22 aircraft] and finally four Sea Venoms, six Gannets and ten Wessex Mk 31 A/S helicopters.[TOTAL: 20 aircraft.]

14 S-2E Tracker A/S aircraft eight A-4G Skyhawk fighter/strike aircraft and two TA-4G Skyhawk trainer aircraft were delivered from the USA in 1967 at a cost of $A46,000,000. Squadrons were first embarked in Melbourne in 1969.

Another eight A-4G and 2 TA-4G were delivered in 1971. HS-817 Squadron recommissioned in February 1976 with Sea King Mk 50 helicopters. A general purpose compliment embarked in Melbourne is eight Skyhawks, four Trackers and five Sea Kings which can be varied to meet various other roles.

Following a hangar fire at NAS Nowra in December 1976 in which all but three S-2E Trackers were destroyed 16 ex-US Navy S-2G Trackers were purchased and delivered in February 1977.

The Notes Also Say.

Modernisation

Melbourne completed her extened refit during 1969 at a cost of over $A8,750,000 to enable her to operate with S-2E Tracker and A-4G Skyhawk aircraft, and to improve habitability. In 1971 the catapult was rebuilt and a bridle-catcher fitted, and the flight deck was strengthened. Under refit from November 1972 to July 1973. On completion of a major refit in 1976 it was announced that Melbourne could remain in operational until 1985. It is planned to remove all twin 40 mm during 1981. [Melbourne had twelve 40mm in four twin and four single mountings.]

And.

Replacement

On 9 September 1980 the Government announced that Melbourne's replacement would be an aircraft carrier capable of carrying helicopters and with a potential for operating VSTOL aircraft. The choice of type will be announced in 1981 and the type of STOVL aircraft to be used (if approved) in 1983. Present reports suggest that the choice of ship may fall on a gas-turbine version of the US Navy "Inchon" class with ski-jump.

 

[Volkodav]

The problem the RAN had was there was a strong view, not just from the RAAF, but from senior defence civilians, that speed was everything in regard to combat aircraft performance, thus any carrier that couldn't carry supersonic fighters wasn't worth having and any carrier that could, wasn't affordable.

They also underrated the capability of ASW helicopters compared to fixed wing long-range maritime patrol aircraft, rating replacing the P-3B with a second batch of P-3C as being more critical to Australian defence than replacing the carrier, or even maintaining the ability to take ASW helicopters to sea.

The transfer of Hermes during the 60s was rejected on cost and crew size, as was the proposal for a modified Essex.

Realistically there was no chance to acquire a larger more capable ship than Melbourne, other than the very short lived proposal for the RAN to crew the Two Implacable Class carriers in late WWII. The government delivered a very resounding "no" on that once they realised it was being discussed by the RN and RAN, but there was a very real possibility it could not only have gone ahead as a temporary transfer, but as a permanent one, in exchange for the very substantial support Australia had been providing the RN BPF.

The other way to save the RNs carrier capability would have been to carry through with Melbourne's ASW Helicopter conversion. As Sydney was still available, she could have received a similar role, then Harrier would have been the only fixed wing option, if any.

Having two helicopter carriers in service in the 60s, conducting ASW, and potentially LPH roles, the RAN would have had a very different argument to put forward to the government. Instead of going from CTOL to helicopters and harriers and having not that old Skyhawks and Trackers with nothing to operate off, there would have been a larger fleet of Wessex and Seakings, also potentially harriers, with lots of life left and all they needed was a deck to fly off. Having had two ships the argument could have been made for two replacements, or even three, smaller hulls.

Throw in the need for extra area air defence, assuming no harriers, and the Invincible or the earlier Escort Cruiser (actually recommended to the RAN by the RN) makes a lot more sense.

My fantasy fleet, three Invincibles or similar (with an area air defence system) ordered as replacements for Sydney and Melbourne, replacement of the DDL with a GP frigate type with a point defence missile system instead of Standard (i.e. no OHP FFGs), and a new FFG/DDG to replace the Darings in the 80s. River Class DEs (Type 12s) replaced with an ASW type in the 90s, Adams Class DDGs replaced in the early 2000s.

Continuous ship building from the 1970s, minimum three CVH or DDH, six DDG/FFG, six ASW frigates and six GP frigates, fewer patrol boats, perhaps an expansion of the Customs fleet and the RAN has none. A MCM squadron and a submarine squadron, three tankers and the army gets all the amphibs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The problem the RAN had was there was a strong view, not just from the RAAF, but from senior defence civilians, that speed was everything in regard to combat aircraft performance, thus any carrier that couldn't carry supersonic fighters wasn't worth having and any carrier that could, wasn't affordable.

That is definitely a major issue to deal with...

They also underrated the capability of ASW helicopters compared to fixed wing long-range maritime patrol aircraft, rating replacing the P-3B with a second batch of P-3C as being more critical to Australian defence than replacing the carrier, or even maintaining the ability to take ASW helicopters to sea.

Admittedly, Orions are better for protecting Australia, while ASW helicopters are for protecting your ships at sea.

The other way to save the RNs carrier capability would have been to carry through with Melbourne's ASW Helicopter conversion. As Sydney was still available, she could have received a similar role, then Harrier would have been the only fixed wing option, if any.

Having two helicopter carriers in service in the 60s, conducting ASW, and potentially LPH roles, the RAN would have had a very different argument to put forward to the government. Instead of going from CTOL to helicopters and harriers and having not that old Skyhawks and Trackers with nothing to operate off, there would have been a larger fleet of Wessex and Seakings, also potentially harriers, with lots of life left and all they needed was a deck to fly off. Having had two ships the argument could have been made for two replacements, or even three, smaller hulls.

Throw in the need for extra area air defence, assuming no harriers, and the Invincible or the earlier Escort Cruiser (actually recommended to the RAN by the RN) makes a lot more sense.

Could definitely see that working for 3 hulls. 3 invincibles (ish) would probably work.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

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.

I don't understand why because it was light enough.

The Colossus class was built to operate aircraft weighing 15,000lb or less and according to Friedman & Marriott the British refitted theirs to operate 20,000lb aircraft. The Majestic class was built to operate 20,000lb. Both classes had one B.H.III hydraulic catapult.

As far as I know the Aquilon's loaded weight was well below the 15,000lb limit of the Colossus class as built. E.g. this website says 12,125lb. https://www.aviastar.org/air/france/sud-est_aquilon.php

According the same website (https://www.aviastar.org/air/france/breguet_alize.php) the Alize had a heavier loaded weight (18,078lb) yet it did operate from Arromanches and the Aquilon didn't.

Maybe the Aquilon had much higher take-off and landing speeds than the Alize.

 

[Rule of cool]

@Volkodav the RAAF does have a point, at least in theory, which is why I'd suggest having Melbourne do a bit in the Vietnam war; enter the actually combat zone during her Hardihood escort missions and do a full combat deployment. Afer all, use it or lose it worked wonders for the Army's tank capability.

For example if the Melbourne was primarily engaged in ASW work on Yankee station she still might provide helicopters for RAN vessels doing NGFS shoots and her fighters might provide a reaction force when our ships encountered return fire, something a handful of A4s could do nicely. RAAF attacks on the capability would be mch tougher as the capability had been used in combat and wasn't theoretical like RAAF fighters and MP aircraft. That said, I'd like the RAAF Sabres in Thailand to go to Vietnam in mid 1966 to give them some work as well.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You're running into the firm limits of the Majestic class size and therefore Airgroup size and composition. I suspect that AEW is a 'nice to have' in the RAN in the 60s when you can only fit 22 aircraft on the Melbourne.

I don't know why the RAN selected the Sea Venom, if it had something to do with a Night-All Weather requirement that needed to be met. If it had something the RAN needed then changing it out would require an aircraft that can do the NAW thing in the mid 50s, which I suspect is a pretty short list.

The short answer, is no I'm, not.

You're underestimating the carrying capacity of the Colossus/Majestic class aircraft carrier. Which, to be fair, so did I, until not so long ago.

It depends upon the size of the aircraft operated. The difference in size between the last generation of British piston-engine naval aircraft and the first-generation of British gas turbine-engine naval aircraft wasn't as big as you may think. That's because I thought the same until not so long ago.

I intend to write a more detailed message on the subject later.

 

[Pioneer]

Here's a question, presumably with no wrong answer.

Would you personally prefer the RAN to have 2 Majestics in whatever spec or the Hermes post 1966 refit then refitted for the RAN?

Interesting.....

If both Majestic-class ships were modified to Melbourne (R21) standards (angled flight deck, steam catapults and mirror landing aid) that would add some weight to my decision. But I'm guess by 1966, even the shortcomings of the Majestic-class must have been very apparent to the RAN, especially in terms of the availability of modern carrier-based fighters options.
Then in my mind I think of what the Indian Navy was able to do with their Majestic-class carrier INS Vikrant, when converting her to a V/STOL carrier, equipped for Sea Harrier operation (1984-1997). But let's be honest, hindsight is a wonderful thing and obviously something not afforded to the RAN in 1966 (The Harrier first flight being 1967).
Then again, having two carriers is always going to be a better choice in terms of combat attrition and the size of AO's.

Ok, then we have the enticing offer of the refitted Hermes, which is irrufutably a much more versatile carrier than a Majestic-class carrier, in all aspects of capabilities, whether it's the number of aircraft carried, volume of aircraft weapons stored, aviation and ship fuel bunkerage, which all equates to a greater time on station during combat operations. Retaining it's CATOBAR arrangements, to support then modern combat aircraft like Vought F-8H (by Coops213 to my request), turboprop-powered Grumman S-2F-4 (Design 215) Tracker, turboprop-powered derivative of E-1B Tracer and Westland Wessex helicopters....., serving out to the 1990's (with the exceptionof Wessex being replaced by Sea King')
But I guess, once the RAN went to one carrier, ever trying to get two carrier in the future would be a hard ask.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

refitted Hermes, which is irrufutably a much more versatile carrier than a Majestic-class carrier, in all aspects of capabilities, whether it's the number of aircraft carried, volume of aircraft weapons stored, aviation and ship fuel bunkerage, which all equates to a greater time on station during combat operations.

It's hard for me to look past this, despite the advantages of a pair of carriers. Australia is still likely committed to the A4 and S2 until the 80s, but after that there are options other than the Sea Harrier which gives the carrier capability greater potential longevity.

 

[Pioneer]

It's hard for me to look past this, despite the advantages of a pair of carriers. Australia is still likely committed to the A4 and S2 until the 80s, but after that there are options other than the Sea Harrier which gives the carrier capability greater potential longevity.

Undoubtedly. Please elaborate your ideas?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

While the Hermes couldn't operate the F/A18 she likely could have flown the A7 which was in production until 1983 and the Super Etendard was in production in the 80s. These aircraft could deal with shadowing aircraft and defend themselves from fighters as well as a Skyhawk could, but have a much greater array of potential offensive weapons and in the case of the A7 considerably greater payload-range.

 

[Pioneer]

While the Hermes couldn't operate the F/A18 she likely could have flown the A7 which was in production until 1983 and the Super Etendard was in production in the 80s. These aircraft could deal with shadowing aircraft and defend themselves from fighters as well as a Skyhawk could, but have a much greater array of potential offensive weapons and in the case of the A7 considerably greater payload-range.

Given the choice, I'd go the A-7, it being far superior in range, loiter time and payload.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Given the choice, I'd go the A-7, it being far superior in range, loiter time and payload.

Regards
Pioneer

I agree.

For a carrier with no robust embarked fighter capability that extra payload-range means the carrier can operate further out to sea and much further away from potential attackers. Decreasing its vulnerability to land based tactical airpower while still being able to deliver a heavy weight of ordnance onto targets.

 

[Pioneer]

I agree.

For a carrier with no robust embarked fighter capability that extra payload-range means the carrier can operate further out to sea and much further away from potential attackers. Decreasing its vulnerability to land based tactical airpower while still being able to deliver a heavy weight of ordnance onto targets.

I've read that the A-7 could take off an American carrier without the use of a catapult (alas in a lighter condition) and as such would be employed as deck-launched interceptor for the carrier in such a case. Can anyone confirm this?
Also, given the difference in U.S. super carriers and the size of Hermes, do you think the A-7 could achieve this non-catapult launch armed with a reduced fuel load, two Aim-9's and its M61 cannon?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Kanga]

Hmmm

I've read that the A-7 could take off an American carrier without the use of a catapult (alas in a lighter condition) and as such would be employed as deck-launched interceptor for the carrier in such a case. Can anyone confirm this?
Also, given the difference in U.S. super carriers and the size of Hermes, do you think the A-7 could achieve this non-catapult launch armed with a reduced fuel load, two Aim-9's and its M61 cannon?

Regards
Pioneer

Hmm, but the Top Guns didn't use A-7s, they used Scooters didn't they (or was that just in the movie)?

 

[Rule of cool]

I've read that the A-7 could take off an American carrier without the use of a catapult (alas in a lighter condition) and as such would be employed as deck-launched interceptor for the carrier in such a case. Can anyone confirm this?
Also, given the difference in U.S. super carriers and the size of Hermes, do you think the A-7 could achieve this non-catapult launch armed with a reduced fuel load, two Aim-9's and its M61 cannon?

Regards
Pioneer

I doubt it, not that the A7 would be doing DLI of inbound strike aircraft, it would be doing leisurely DLI of shadowing Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

Hmmm

Hmm, but the Top Guns didn't use A-7s, they used Scooters didn't they (or was that just in the movie)?

Sure, but Top Gun was simulating Soviet fighters, flying 'clean' with only a sidewinder rail and CATM attached directly to the fuselage hardpoint without a even a pylon.. The RAN does not have any ability to go head to head with opposing fighters or even intercept jet strike aircraft with the A4 or A7, it can chase off or shoot down shadowing MPA and possibly defend itself from fighters if intercepted during an attack mission.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This my latest version of the thread.

• 189 Vampires were still built by DHA with licence-built RR Nene engines, but they had the air intakes designed by Boulton Paul which improved their performance considerably.
• 55 Canberras were still acquired, including 48 built under licence by GAF with licence-built RR Avon engines.
• 112 Hunters were built under licence by Commonwealth with licence built Avon engines.
  • They took the place of the 112 Avon-Sabres CAC built IOTL.
  • Some of them were T.7 two-seat trainers.
• 39 Sea Hunters were built under licence by Commonwealth with licence built RR Avon engines.
  • They took the place of the 39 imported DH Sea Venoms.
  • Some of them were T.8 two-seat trainers.
  • However, all 39 aircraft might be two-seaters (based on the Hunter T.8) with an AI radar.
  • They were built on the same production line as the 112 Hunters built for the RAAF.
  • That increased the total number of Hunters built by Commonwealth to 151.
  • However, the RAN has 3 Majestic class aircraft carriers from 1955 ITTL instead of two.
    • Furthermore, it kept two in commission as fully operational aircraft carriers with the third in reserve or long refit.
    • That's instead 2 ships with one in commission as a fully operational aircraft carrier and the other ship in reserve or in commission as a training ship/fast transport.
    • Each air group would consist of 8 Sea Hunters, 17 Gannets and 2 Sycamores for a total of 27 aircraft from 1955 until the early 1960s when Sycamores and half the Gannets were replaced by a squadron of Wessexes.
    • All other things being equal each of the two operational aircraft carriers would have a squadron of 8 Sea Hunters until the end of the 1960s when they were replaced by Skyhawks. (See below.)
    • That doesn't increase the number of aircraft required because AFAIK enough Sea Venoms were purchased to maintain 2 first-line squadrons.
    • Therefore, the 39 Sea Hunters bought in their place should be enough to maintain 2 squadrons of 8 aircraft until the end of the 1960s.
  • Except, the Sea Hunter folded into a smaller package than the Sea Venom, increasing the number of fighters the RAN's aircraft carriers could carry by at least 50% and perhaps 100%.
    • Therefore, each air group would consist of 12-16 Sea Hunters, 17 Gannets and 2 Sycamores for a total of 31-35 aircraft until the early 1960s when the Sycamores and half the Gannets were replaced by a squadron of Wessexes.
    • That may require the purchase of another 20-40 Sea Hunters from Commonwealth to maintain the larger squadrons until the end of the 1960s
    • Although, that will increase the number of Hunters built by Commonwealth from 151 to between 171 and 191.
• The Canberra Replacement.
  • 54 Vigilantes were built under licence by GAF for a near one-for-one replacement of the Canberras.
  • They took the place of the 24 F-111Cs initially purchased IOTL.
  • Unlike the F-111Cs, the Vigilantes were delivered on time and at cost.
  • They might cost less than the 24 F-111Cs.
• The English Electric Lightning.
  • 30 were ordered in place of the Starfighters. However, the order was cancelled in favour of more Hunters.
  • 110 were built under licence by Commonwealth with licence built RR Avon engines instead of the 110 Mirage IIIs with licence-built Atar engines.
    • Due to the Avon already being in production for the Canberras, Hunter & Sea Hunter the cost of retooling to build the Atar was avoided and the unit cost of the engines may have been less than the Atar because twice as many engines were built.
  • The RAAF had 5 fighter squadrons equipped with Lightnings in the early 1970s instead of 3 fighter squadrons with Mirages, with a proportionate increase in the number of aircraft in second-line units such as the OCU.
    • Therefore the second batch of Lightnings was purchased to take account of the 66% higher attrition caused by having 66% more aircraft in front-line service.
    • They took the place of the second batch of 6 Mirage IIIs built in the early 1970s.
    • Except, the Lightning had two engines and might have had a lower attrition rate than the Mirage III because losses to engine failures would have been reduced.
    • Therefore, the size of the Lighting attrition batch may have been smaller than the size of an equivalent batch of Mirage IIIs in a timeline were 5 Mirage III squadrons were maintained into the 1980s instead of 3.
  • The RNZAF bought enough Lightnings to replace its Canberras and Venoms one-for-one.
    • The aircraft and their engines were built by Commonwealth between the two batches of Lightnings for the RAAF.
• The Skyhawk.
  • All other things being equal the RAN bought twice as many Skyhawks to replace its Sea Hunters, because it had 2 aircraft carriers in commission at all times instead of one.
  • However, all other things may not be equal.
  • One Skyhawk was about twice the size of a folded Sea Hunter.
  • Therefore, there might be a SLEP for the Sea Hunter because double the number of aircraft might be considered better than half the number (of albeit more capable) aircraft.
• Trainers.
  • The larger number of combat aircraft in front-line service with the RAAF, RAN and RNZAF may mean that more trainers had to be purchased to train the extra pilots.
  • IOTL 97 MB-326 were built by Commonwealth for the RAF & RAN and BAC built 16 Strikemasters for the RNZAF, both aircraft had RR Viper engines.
  • ITTL at least 113 Strikemasters were built by Commonwealth for the RAAF, RAN and RNZAF.
• The McDonnell Douglas Hornet.
  • 125 were initially purchased and the 50 extra aircraft were built in Australia.
    • That is, enough were bought to maintain 5 fighter squadrons instead of 3.
  • A second batch of 50 strike-optimised Hornets followed to replace the Vigilantes.
    • These took the place of the second-hand F-111s purchased from the USA.
  • The RNZAF bought enough Hornets to replace its Lightnings one-for-one and they were built in Australia too.

@Rule of cool, please be aware that I was bonkers when I wrote this.