Alternative RAAF fleets.

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 259.

I do like your thinking on the Sea Hunter, I've fantasized about similar but operating from RAN Centaurs or Implacables,

I regret to inform you that a Sea Hunters won't fit into the 14ft tall hangars of an Implacable if its wings fold upwards at the wing roots in the same fashion of as a Sea Hawk. The Hunter F.6 was 13ft 2in high and the height of a Sea Hunter its wings folded will be well in excess of 14ft. Furthermore, they might not fit in the 17ft 6in tall hangars of your RAN Centaurs and my 3 RAN Majestics either.

The wings could be made to fold further out than the wing roots, but that would reduce the width when folded, and reduce the number of Sea Hunters that could be stowed abreast in a ship's hangar.

Fortunately, it may be possible to have them fold backwards. Several American and British naval aircraft had wings that folded in this fashion, including the Avenger, Barracuda, Firefly and Fulmar. Or it may be possible to make the wings fold twice, in common with the Gannet and the "praying mantis" folding wings on some marks of Seafire.

PS. I'm not being sarcastic and genuinely regret having to tell you this.

 

[TsrJoe]

Looking at the company GA. drawing it seems the P.1117 'Naval Hunter' was proposed with a non folding wing

 

[Pioneer]

Looking at the company GA. drawing it seems the P.1117 'Naval Hunter' was proposed with a non folding wing

Thank you TsrJoe

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

Looking at the company GA. drawing it seems the P.1117 'Naval Hunter' was proposed with a non folding wing

Bugger. Kills that idea.

Then we come to the late 1960s and the decision to have a SLEP for the Sea Hunter or to replace them with a smaller number of Skyhawks. FWIW I don't know whether a larger number of less capable aircraft is better than a smaller number of less capable aircraft in this instance. I've not checked, but I recall writing as much. I'm sorry for not making it clearer, if I didn't.

The real problem is that we're stuck talking about replacing an all-weather fighter with a daylight bomber that happens to be a decent dogfighter. Because there's just flat NO then-current-generation all-weather fighter that can operate off the postage stamp that Oz is calling a carrier.

What radar options are there that we could swap into the Skyhawks? The units out of the F-8Cs or later? Any better alternatives?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 264.

FWIW it looks too good to be true to me. Maybe it's too heavy. Maybe it's take off and landing speeds are too high. Maybe its range is too short and/or the armament is too small. Worst of all maybe the wing can't be folded at the wing root, which voids everything that I've written, because the small folded wingspan is what makes it so attractive.

I've discovered why it's too good to be true. It's been staring me in the face. And I didn't notice it until earlier today.

• It's the undercarriage.
• The wheel track of a Sea Hawk is 8ft 6in.
• The wheel track of a Hunter is 14ft 9in.

Either the Sea Hunter has to be redesigned with a new undercarriage with a narrower track or where the wings fold will have to be outboard of the main wheels. The latter is the most plausible, which wrecks my argument for the Sea Hunter, because it increases the folded wingspan considerably.

The most obvious position seems to be between the ailerons and the flaps, which, according to my measurements of the line drawings, increases the folded wingspan from 11ft 10in to 18ft 8in. That means it can only be stored two-abreast in the 52ft wide hangar of a Colossus/Majestic class ship. Although that's about narrow enough for it to be stored in the 62ft wide hangars of a Centaur class ship.

The next best position seems to be immediately outboard of the landing gear. My calculations from the line drawings are that the folded wingspan at that position would be 15ft 8in. That would allow Sea Hunters to be stored three-abreast in a Colossus or Majestic class ship with 5ft to spare. However, 4 x 15ft 8in = 62ft 8in which is too wide for four abreast in a Centaur's hangar. The problem with the wings folding here is that the flaps will have to be redesigned and split into two.

Maybe this is why the navalised Hunter didn't have folding wings. However, the initial batch of Type 548 Sea Swifts didn't have folding wings either. Therefore, maybe the P.1117 was intended for fixed-wing jet familiarisation trials too and was Hawker's submission to Specification N.105.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Bugger. Kills that idea.

FWIW, I didn't know that the B-word was used in that way in American English.

The real problem is that we're stuck talking about replacing an all-weather fighter with a daylight bomber that happens to be a decent dogfighter.

It looks like the Sea Hunter's a non-starter anyway. It can't be made to fold into the very small package that I've claimed.

Because there's just flat NO then-current-generation all-weather fighter that can operate off the postage stamp that Oz is calling a carrier.

It's bigger than people think. I'm working on a message to explain that.

What radar options are there that we could swap into the Skyhawks? The units out of the F-8Cs or later? Any better alternatives?

Don't know.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Part of Message 280.

In the case of the Indonesian Confrontation the RN had plans to fly aircraft from the UK to the Far East to augment the air groups of the aircraft carriers in the Eastern Fleet. It was tested in an exercise in 1968-69 when 38 aircraft were embarked on Hermes.

From July 1966 to February 1968 carried 33 aircraft as follows:

• 12 Sea Vixen FAW.2 - 892 Squadron.
• 8 Buccaneer S.2 - 809 Squadron.
• 8 Wessex HAS.1 - 826 Squadron.
• 4 Gannet AEW.3 - 849 Squadron, D Flight.
• 1 Gannet COD.4 - Ship's Flight.

From May 1968 to when she paid off in July 1970 she operated 34 aircraft as follows:

• 12 Sea Vixen FAW.2 - 893 Squadron.
• 8 Buccaneer S.2 - 801 Squadron.
• 8 Wessex HAS.3 - 814 Squadron.
• 1 Wessex HAS.1 - Ship's Flight.
• 4 Gannet AEW.3 - 849 Squadron, A Flight.
• 1 Gannet COD.4 - Ship's Flight.

From August 1968 to April 1969 they were augmented by the 4 Buccaneer S.2s of 803 Squadron, Detachment 4, which flew out from Lossiemouth, via Nicosia, Masirah and Gan to Malaysia to join Hermes in the Indian Ocean. That increased the number of aircraft aboard to 38.

That's according to "The Squadrons and Units of the Fleet Air Arm" by Theo Ballance, Lee Howard and Ray Sturtivant. Except, they're not clear about the number of Wessex helicopters from May 1968 to June 1970.

• They say 814 Squadron reformed in November 1961 with 8 Wessex HAS.1s, but the way the article is written makes it unclear whether 6 or 8 Wessex HAS.3s embarked on Hermes in May 1968.
• It's also unclear about the number of Wessex HAS.1s in her ship's flight. It has the serial of one aircraft (XS871) but it only quotes the serial of one aircraft of every ship's flight in the section on the ship's flights of aircraft carriers, and some of them would have had two or more aircraft.

 

[Rule of cool]

Part of Message 264.

I've discovered why it's too good to be true. It's been staring me in the face. And I didn't notice it until earlier today.

• It's the undercarriage.
• The wheel track of a Sea Hawk is 8ft 6in.
• The wheel track of a Hunter is 14ft 9in.

Either the Sea Hunter has to be redesigned with a new undercarriage with a narrower track or where the wings fold will have to be outboard of the main wheels. The latter is the most plausible, which wrecks my argument for the Sea Hunter, because it increases the folded wingspan considerably.

The most obvious position seems to be between the ailerons and the flaps, which, according to my measurements of the line drawings, increases the folded wingspan from 11ft 10in to 18ft 8in. That means it can only be stored two-abreast in the 52ft wide hangar of a Colossus/Majestic class ship. Although that's about narrow enough for it to be stored in the 62ft wide hangars of a Centaur class ship.

The next best position seems to be immediately outboard of the landing gear. My calculations from the line drawings are that the folded wingspan at that position would be 15ft 8in. That would allow Sea Hunters to be stored three-abreast in a Colossus or Majestic class ship with 5ft to spare. However, 4 x 15ft 8in = 62ft 8in which is too wide for four abreast in a Centaur's hangar. The problem with the wings folding here is that the flaps will have to be redesigned and split into two.

Maybe this is why the navalised Hunter didn't have folding wings. However, the initial batch of Type 548 Sea Swifts didn't have folding wings either. Therefore, maybe the P.1117 was intended for fixed-wing jet familiarisation trials too and was Hawker's submission to Specification N.105.

Fighter design is hard, naval fighter design is even harder. A wide track undercarriage and low centre of gravity is great for stability during carrier landings, but it does impact wing fold and therefore hangar footprint.

 

[Rule of cool]

Part of Message 280.

From July 1966 to February 1968 carried 33 aircraft as follows:

• 12 Sea Vixen FAW.2 - 892 Squadron.
• 8 Buccaneer S.2 - 809 Squadron.
• 8 Wessex HAS.1 - 826 Squadron.
• 4 Gannet AEW.3 - 849 Squadron, D Flight.
• 1 Gannet COD.4 - Ship's Flight.

From May 1968 to when she paid off in July 1970 she operated 34 aircraft as follows:

• 12 Sea Vixen FAW.2 - 893 Squadron.
• 8 Buccaneer S.2 - 801 Squadron.
• 8 Wessex HAS.3 - 814 Squadron.
• 1 Wessex HAS.1 - Ship's Flight.
• 4 Gannet AEW.3 - 849 Squadron, A Flight.
• 1 Gannet COD.4 - Ship's Flight.

From August 1968 to April 1969 they were augmented by the 4 Buccaneer S.2s of 803 Squadron, Detachment 4, which flew out from Lossiemouth, via Nicosia, Masirah and Gan to Malaysia to join Hermes in the Indian Ocean. That increased the number of aircraft aboard to 38.

That's according to "The Squadrons and Units of the Fleet Air Arm" by Theo Ballance, Lee Howard and Ray Sturtivant. Except, they're not clear about the number of Wessex helicopters from May 1968 to June 1970.

• They say 814 Squadron reformed in November 1961 with 8 Wessex HAS.1s, but the way the article is written makes it unclear whether 6 or 8 Wessex HAS.3s embarked on Hermes in May 1968.
• It's also unclear about the number of Wessex HAS.1s in her ship's flight. It has the serial of one aircraft (XS871) but it only quotes the serial of one aircraft of every ship's flight in the section on the ship's flights of aircraft carriers, and some of them would have had two or more aircraft.

By the Cold War British practice conformed to a rule or pattern of 2/3 - 1/3. At best they found 2/3 of their aircraft were available and 1/3 not, but they also found that 2/3 of aircraft could also be struck down in the hangar for maintenance. IIUC by the time they got to CVA01 they designed their carriers to maximise this rule/patter of operation.

The CAGs here would operate on 3 cycles, the jet cycle with the 20 Sea Vixens and Buccaneers with an endurance of ~2 hours, the Gannet cycle with an endurance of ~5 hours and the helicopter cycle. The helicopter cycle would be independent of the wind, the Gannets would fit in with the jet cycle and the jet cycle would be probably 15-30 minutes into the wind every 1 1/2 hours. Given the 2/3 - 1/3 rule/pattern the most jets the Hermes would launch at once is likely 12, although that would be unusual, I'd think.

Presumably with British carriers and British planes and operating as part of the RN in S.E.A. the RAN would also conform to this practice.

 

[Scott Kenny]

FWIW, I didn't know that the B-word was used in that way in American English.

I don't think it is, generally. But it's not seen as an F-bomb in American English so it's safer to use on mostly-American forums.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

By the Cold War British practice conformed to a rule or pattern of 2/3 - 1/3. At best they found 2/3 of their aircraft were available and 1/3 not, but they also found that 2/3 of aircraft could also be struck down in the hangar for maintenance. IIUC by the time they got to CVA01 they designed their carriers to maximise this rule/patter of operation.

The CAGs here would operate on 3 cycles, the jet cycle with the 20 Sea Vixens and Buccaneers with an endurance of ~2 hours, the Gannet cycle with an endurance of ~5 hours and the helicopter cycle. The helicopter cycle would be independent of the wind, the Gannets would fit in with the jet cycle and the jet cycle would be probably 15-30 minutes into the wind every 1 1/2 hours. Given the 2/3 - 1/3 rule/pattern the most jets the Hermes would launch at once is likely 12, although that would be unusual, I'd think.

Presumably with British carriers and British planes and operating as part of the RN in S.E.A. the RAN would also conform to this practice.

I'm nonplussed by how that relates to what I wrote. However, this looks like another application of the rule-of-three.

Furthermore, the last sentence is what is scientifically known as a "no-brainer" because in addition to what you wrote.

• The RAN used British designed & built aircraft carriers.
• Until the late 1960s the Australian FAA was equipped with British designed & built aircraft;
• The Australian FAA's aircrew & groundcrew and the personnel of the aircraft departments of Melbourne, Sydney & Vengeance were trained by the British or at least trained in Australia to British standards.

To reinforce the last point, four of the Australian FAA's six 800-series squadrons were formed in the UK and three of them were re-formed in the UK after disbanding in Australia.

• No. 805 Squadron formed at RNAS Eglinton in August 1948 and in February 1949 embarked on Sydney & sailed for Australia.
  • The squadron (which equipped with Sea Furies) disbanded at RNAS Nowra in March 1958.
  • It reformed at RANAS Nowra later in March 1958 and took the place of No. 808 Squadron, which disbanded in December 1958.
  • The reformed squadron (which was equipped with Sea Venoms) disbanded for the second time at RANAS Nowra in June 1963.
• No. 808 Squadron formed at RNAS St Merryn in April 1950 and in August 1950 embarked on Sydney & sailed for Australia.
  • The squadron (which was equipped with Sea Furies) disbanded at RANAS Nowra in October 1954.
  • It reformed at RNAS Yeovilton in August 1955 and embarked on Melbourne in February 1956 for passage to Australia.
  • The squadron (which was equipped with Sea Venoms) disbanded for the second time at RANAS Nowra in December 1958.
  • Its place was taken by the recently reformed No. 805 Squadron.
• No. 816 Squadron formed at RNAS Eglinton in August 1948 and in February 1949 embarked on Sydney & sailed for Australia.
  • The squadron (which was equipped with Fireflies) disbanded at RANAS Nowra in April 1955.
  • It reformed at RNAS Culdrose in August 1955 and embarked on Melbourne in February 1956 for passage to Australia.
  • The squadron (which was equipped with Gannets) disbanded for the second time at RANAS Nowra in August 1967.
  • In the meantime the squadron took some of the Sea Venoms of No. 724 Squadron and operated them as "B" Flight from July 1964 to August 1967.
• No. 817 Squadron formed at RNAS St Merryn in April 1950 and in August 1950 embarked on Sydney & sailed for Australia.
  • The squadron (which was equipped with Fireflies) disbanded at RANAS Nowra in April 1955.
  • It reformed at RNAS Culdrose in August 1955 and embarked on Melbourne in February 1956 for passage to Australia.
  • The squadron (which was equipped with Gannets) disbanded for the second time at RANAS Nowra in August 1958.
  • It reformed for the second time at RANAS Nowra in July 1963.
  • The squadron disbanded at RANAS Nowra in December 2011.
    • In this incarnation the squadron was equipped with the Wessex until 1978 and the Sea King from 1976.
• No. 850 Squadron was formed at RANAS Nowra in January 1953.
  • That made it the first 800-Series squadron in the Australian FAA to be formed in Australia and the fifth to be formed overall.
  • The squadron (which was equipped with Sea Furies) was disbanded at RANAS Nowra in August 1954.
  • The above was the only incarnation of the squadron.
  • However, I suspect that it would have been reformed as a Gannet squadron for Sydney had she been refitted to the same standard as Melbourne and recommissioned as an aircraft carrier instead of a fast transport-cum-training ship.
• No. 851 Squadron was formed at RNAS Nowra in August 1954.
  • That made it the second 800-Series squadron to be formed in Australia and the sixth to be formed overall.
  • The squadron (which was equipped with Fireflies) was disbanded at RANAS Nowra in January 1958.
  • The source says that it was an anti-submarine training squadron.
  • Therefore, it should have been given a number in the 700-Series.
  • My guess is that it was intended to be an operational squadron equipped with Sea Furies and that it took the place of a projected 700-series anti-submarine training squadron whose formation was abandoned as part of the 1954 defence cuts.
  • I think, that before the 1954 defence cuts, plan was to have six 800-Series squadrons.
    • Four with Sea Furies and two with Fireflies.
      • Of which.
    • Two Sea Fury and one Firefly squadrons would have formed the air group of Sydney, until she was refitted to the same standard as Melbourne.
      • And.
    • Two Sea Fury and one Firefly squadrons would have formed the air group of Vengeance, until she was relieved by Melbourne.
  • Furthermore, I suspect that it would have been reformed as a Gannet squadron for Sydney had she been refitted to the same standard as Melbourne and recommissioned as an aircraft carrier instead of a fast transport-cum-training ship.

Therefore, for a time the Australian FAA would have had a front-line strength of two Sea Venom and four Gannet squadrons if the refitted Sydney had been provided with the same air group as Melbourne. Then in the early 1960s two Gannet squadrons would have disbanded and reformed on the Wessex before converting to the Sea King in the late 1970s. Meanwhile, the two Sea Venom squadrons would have disbanded in 1963, but each of the two surviving Gannet squadrons would have acquired a flight of Sea Venoms in 1964 and disbanded in 1967. However, they would have been succeeded in 1968 by two Skyhawk and two Tracker squadrons, which all other things being equal would have survived until the early 1980s.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Fighter design is hard, naval fighter design is even harder.

I'm more nonplussed by that statement than I am by your reply to Message 285. It's the mother of no-brainers.

The point is, that I should have noticed the metal legs protruding from the bottom of the wings to the round rubber things that touched the ground, when I measured the line drawings of the Hunter. That would have saved myself a lot of time and everyone else (particularly you and @Scott Kenny) some aggravation.

A wide track undercarriage and low centre of gravity is great for stability during carrier landings, but it does impact wing fold and therefore hangar footprint.

The Sea Hawk was a naval fighter and the Hunter was a land fighter. Yet, the naval fighter's undercarriage track was narrower than the land fighter's. That is 8ft 6in v 14ft 9in. FWIW, the Sea Hawk also had wingspan that was 5ft 4in greater than the Hunter, that is, 39ft 0in v 33ft 8in.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm more nonplussed by that statement than I am by your reply to Message 285. It's the mother of no-brainers.

The point is, that I should have noticed the metal legs protruding from the bottom of the wings to the round rubber things that touched the ground, when I measured the line drawings of the Hunter. That would have saved myself a lot of time and everyone else (particularly you and @Scott Kenny) some aggravation.

Not a big deal.

 

[BlackBat242]

Bugger. Kills that idea.

The real problem is that we're stuck talking about replacing an all-weather fighter with a daylight bomber that happens to be a decent dogfighter. Because there's just flat NO then-current-generation all-weather fighter that can operate off the postage stamp that Oz is calling a carrier.

What radar options are there that we could swap into the Skyhawks? The units out of the F-8Cs or later? Any better alternatives?

One A-4 was fitted with a radar from a F-8 Crusader - but whether F-8C or F-8D I'm not sure.

Its story is here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-4s-for-air-defence-and-other-oddball-ideas.39553/post-536403

And here in the context of Canadian radar-equipped Skyhawks operating from Bonaventure in the late 1960s-early 1970s: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/canada-buys-the-a-4-skyhawk.35619/post-528816

 

[Archibald]

Would a 24-inch antenna APQ-50 fits inside a Skyhawk nose ? it was the Skyray radar. And derived from it was the Skylancer APQ-64, with Sparrow II; and the Phantom APQ-72, with Sparrow III and the antenna grown to 32-inch.
I wonder about an APQ-50 with the radar-guided Sidewinder.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm more nonplussed by that statement than I am by your reply to Message 285. It's the mother of no-brainers.

The point is, that I should have noticed the metal legs protruding from the bottom of the wings to the round rubber things that touched the ground, when I measured the line drawings of the Hunter. That would have saved myself a lot of time and everyone else (particularly you and @Scott Kenny) some aggravation.

Sure, but this is why I'm loathe to suggest a non-aircraft manufacturing country like Australia look at anything that didn't actually fly and better yet be adopted into service. This thread has shown me the details of the Avon Mirage and Australia went with the standard version despite it's shortcomings, there's little chance the RAN with it's tiny requirement would go fr something bespoke.

For interest sake, what were the takeoff and landing characteristics of the Hunter? Was it a hot ship, or pretty docile in the lading pattern? I know it was pretty short o flight endurance, although I don[t know what the worse performing Sea Hawk and Sea Venom were like for endurance.

The Sea Hawk was a naval fighter and the Hunter was a land fighter. Yet, the naval fighter's undercarriage track was narrower than the land fighter's. That is 8ft 6in v 14ft 9in. FWIW, the Sea Hawk also had wingspan that was 5ft 4in greater than the Hunter, that is, 39ft 0in v 33ft 8in.

Yes, I was a bit surprised at that, especially given all the talk about the likes of the Grumman Wildcat and Skyhawk having narrow track. However the Sea Hawk looks like it sits pretty low on its undercarriage, it don't looks like it's sitting up high and ready to tip over.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm nonplussed by how that relates to what I wrote. However, this looks like another application of the rule-of-three.

My point was that the the Majestics had a more or less fixed space in the hangar, flight deck, magazine and fuel bunkers. I imagine a more or less linear progression between less and less but more and more capable aircraft using these more or less fixed limitations, so 21 Skyhawks, Trackers and and Wessex will use the ordnance in the same amount of time as the 38 Sea Furies and Fireflies 10-15 years earlier. I imagine having ~30 Sea Hunters instead of ~20 Sea Venoms will use up the fuel and ordnance and make the Majestic patrol less than the nominal 10 days. The mismatch between the Melbourne's at sea endurance and that of USN carriers was given as a reason why Melbourne couldn't do a Vietnam deployment.

 

[Pioneer]

My point was that the the Majestics had a more or less fixed space in the hangar, flight deck, magazine and fuel bunkers. I imagine a more or less linear progression between less and less but more and more capable aircraft using these more or less fixed limitations, so 21 Skyhawks, Trackers and and Wessex will use the ordnance in the same amount of time as the 38 Sea Furies and Fireflies 10-15 years earlier. I imagine having ~30 Sea Hunters instead of ~20 Sea Venoms will use up the fuel and ordnance and make the Majestic patrol less than the nominal 10 days. The mismatch between the Melbourne's at sea endurance and that of USN carriers was given as a reason why Melbourne couldn't do a Vietnam deployment.

Perhaps in that case, the RAN needs to put some serious resources and $$$ into a serious logistics fleet, so as to support it's tip of the spear capital ship(s) like it's carriers. This way the RAN can facilitate/compensate for known and appreciated Majestic patrol less than the nominal 10 days.

Regards
 Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

Sure, but this is why I'm loathe to suggest a non-aircraft manufacturing country like Australia look at anything that didn't actually fly and better yet be adopted into service. This thread has shown me the details of the Avon Mirage and Australia went with the standard version despite it's shortcomings, there's little chance the RAN with it's tiny requirement would go fr something bespoke.

Given that realistically, there are very few choices of combat aircraft that can actually operate from the inherent limits of the Majestic-class carrier. Along with the fact of the vulnerability of the Majestic-class carrier to the likes of Indonesian's anti-ship missile armed aircraft and missile boats, I would think that Australia would be sensible to go the extra mile with a handful of carrier-based combat aircraft to avert a potentially very embarrassing sinking of their national prestigious capital ship(s) like a carrier with some 1,350 crew.
Hence, I think the money, time and effort would be sort after equipping the Skyhawk's to be a more capable fighter-interceptor.
One should appreciate that McDonnell Douglas did propose a more specialised fighter development of it's Skyhawk - the A-4 International Skyhawk, which was to be armed with Aim-7 Sparrow III's. But saying this I'm not sure what radar it was supposed to be equipped to support the Sparrow III's [I'll do some more homework on that!].
Radar dish size, is there any reason why the Skyhawk can't have a more bulbous radome like that on the McDonnell F-4 Phantom II had......
The other serious consideration might be Australia taking up and becoming the launch customer for the [Real-World] Northrop N-156D - a carrier-based derivative of the F-5 Freedom Fighter, with larger wings, more fuel, greater payload, strengthened arrestor gear, which was offered in 1965 to the RAN as the N-285B.
[Source for Northrop N-156D - Post#29 https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/n-156-evolution-of-the-northrop-f-5.12111/#post-3439]

Regards
 Pioneer

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Perhaps in that case, the RAN needs to put some serious resources and $$$ into a serious logistics fleet, so as to support it's tip of the spear capital ship(s) like it's carriers. This way the RAN can facilitate/compensate for known and appreciated Majestic patrol less than the nominal 10 days.

Regards
 Pioneer

The answer to that is buy 3 Tide class tankers instead of 2 so there'd be enough tankers to to support 2 carrier task forces at all times.

Furthermore, all three ships should be manned by a reformed Royal Australian Fleet Auxiliary (RAFA) rather than the RAN. IOTL HMAS Supply (ex-Tide Austral) was built for the RAN, but was operated by the British RFA from her completion in March 1955 to September 1962 when she was commissioned into the RAN. According to Jane's 1969-70 she had a crew of 200. If she'd been in the RAFA instead of the RAN the 200 men saved would have gone a long way towards having an extra destroyer or frigate in commission. E.g. by retaining Anzac to a fully-operational warship and keeping a Type 15 in commission as the training ship. Of they'd have gone some of the way to upgrading Sydney into a fully operational aircraft carrier, because according to Jane's 1969-70 she had a crew of 608 and Melbourne had a crew of 1,354.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Sure, but this is why I'm loathe to suggest a non-aircraft manufacturing country like Australia look at anything that didn't actually fly and better yet be adopted into service. This thread has shown me the details of the Avon Mirage and Australia went with the standard version despite it's shortcomings, there's little chance the RAN with it's tiny requirement would go for something bespoke.

That's why I had Sea Hunter developed for the RN instead of the Sea Swift. Furthermore, it's likely to have been used by the Dutch, Indian and West German naval air arms too instead of the Sea Hawks they bought IOTL. It's all there in greater detail earlier in the thread.

If it helps, the Sea Venom was originally developed for the RAN and then the RN adopted it as a stop-gap for the Sea Vixen. In which case it's plausible for the Australian Government to sponsor the development of a navalised Hunter in its place. That is, if I've remembered Norman Friedman correctly, because I also remember him writing that the RN developed the Sea Venom as s stop-gap for the Sea Vixen.

And it's all moot because the Sea Hunter wouldn't fold into the small package that I claimed it would and that's the main reason for having it instead of the Sea Venom.

For interest sake, what were the take-off and landing characteristics of the Hunter? Was it a hot ship, or pretty docile in the lading pattern? I know it was pretty short o flight endurance, although I don't know what the worse performing Sea Hawk and Sea Venom were like for endurance.

Don't know about the take-off and landing characteristics. That's another thing that could make the Sea Hunter too good to be true.

According to the Putnams on the British Naval Aircraft since 1912.

• The Sea Hawk FGA.6 as a fighter-bomber had a radius of action of 288 miles when carrying two 500lb bombs and two 100-gallon drop-tanks.
  • The loaded weight with drop-tanks and two 500lb bombs was 16,200lb.
• The de Havilland Sea Venom FAW.22 had a range of 705 miles.
  • However, it doesn't say whether that was on internal fuel or with drop tanks and whether that was with or without an external armament.
  • It had a loaded weight of 15,800lb, but the book doesn't say what the load was.
• Both aircraft had an internal armament of four 20mm cannon.

The best that I can do for the Sea Hunter is the following for the Hunter FGA.9 from the Putnams on RAF Aircraft since 1918.

• The tactical radius was 219 miles when carrying a bomb load of 2,000lbs and drop tanks.
• It's not clear whether that's four 500lb bombs or two 1,000lb bombs.
• It had a loaded weight of 18,090lb, but the book doesn't say what the load was.
• However, it also says that the aircraft's maximum gross weight was 26,600lb.

FWIW and IIRC the Hawker P.1052 and P.1081 both flew from a British aircraft carrier in trials, so the swept-wing Sea Hunter may be able to do it too. Furthermore, this tangent was inspired by the Sea Swift and if its take-off & landing characteristics were good enough for a British aircraft carrier, it's likely that the Hunter's were too.

Yes, I was a bit surprised at that, especially given all the talk about the likes of the Grumman Wildcat and Skyhawk having narrow track. However the Sea Hawk looks like it sits pretty low on its undercarriage, it don't looks like it's sitting up high and ready to tip over.

FWIW it surprised me too. Re your comment about it sitting pretty low on its undercarriage. The Hunter was 13ft 2in tall and the Sea Hawk was only 8ft 9in tall. However, with the wings folded the span reduced to 13ft 4in and its height increased to 16ft 11in, but despite that I've not heard of them tipping over on a regular basis. Although, now I've written that lots of people will say yes they did tip over regularly and provide examples.

 

[Pioneer]

My version of the RAAF A-5C had conformal bomb carriage in the fuselage belly (similar to the camera/SLR canoe but with a couple on the outside part of the belly as well) to increase payload - but now I can see that a possible choice for a mid-late 1970s MLU program would be to allow carriage of the AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack pod (the same one as historically made for USAF F-4Es).

Also, according to the USN, all 4 pylons of the A-5B/RA-5C were rated for just above 3,000lb, not 2,000lb.
The "max bomb size" was listed at 3,080lb - and an external load of 32 MK 82 500lb bombs (8 per pylon, 2,000lb bombs plus MER) in addition to the internal payload.

They are also listed as capable of carrying a full 400 US gallon drop tank on each pylon - the weight of 400 USG JP-5 is 2,588lb to 2,804lb for just the fuel (6.47lb/gal to 7.01lb/gal depending on the temperature of the fuel) - normally simplified to 2,720lb of JP-5 at 59° F. Add in the weight of the tank itself, and you see that pylon capacity is far more than 2,000lb.
This data is from the Nov 1962 Characteristics Summary for the A-5B (attached below).

The July 1967 SAC for the RA-5C lists "(4) 400gal tanks plus 3 internal fuel cans" for buddy-refueling missions*, thus confirming the pylon weight rating (also attached below).

* on the Performance Summary page in the notes at the bottom as well as the Reconnaissance Missions page entries B, C, & F on the mission loadings chart.


View attachment 760083

View attachment 760084

View attachment 760086

View attachment 760087

Sorry BlackBat242, I've just re-read your post again and appreciate deeper your analogy of
'conformal bomb carriage in the fuselage belly (similar to the camera/SLR canoe)' and 'a possible mid-late 1970s MLU program would allow the carriage of the AN/AVQ-26 Pave Tack pod.'

Makes a lot of sense, freeing up the wing pylons for four drop tanks, equating to range, as well as adding useful life to the entire Vigilante in RAAF service, when one considers a Vigilante carrying say four Paveway LGB, making for far more accuracy than the 32 MK 82 500lb bumb bombs.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

One A-4 was fitted with a radar from a F-8 Crusader - but whether F-8C or F-8D I'm not sure.

Its story is here:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/a-4s-for-air-defence-and-other-oddball-ideas.39553/post-536403

And here in the context of Canadian radar-equipped Skyhawks operating from Bonaventure in the late 1960s-early 1970s: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/canada-buys-the-a-4-skyhawk.35619/post-528816

A pair of AIM-9Cs and a pair of IR Sidewinders would be viable.

I was honestly hoping for a radar that could handle Sparrows! Skyhawks have a big capacity, I'd like to use it with AAMs. Sparrows on the outer pylons, and Sidewinders on the shoulders of the inner pylons F-4 style. (Edit) And then carrying fuel tanks on the inboard pylons, like F-4s on air superiority missions usually did.