To put another cat among the pigeons:
9101002559_bbc713c846_o-jpg.195954

cl-84-8f-scs-aew-png.574094

img_8513-jpg.660141

(h/t Stargazer, hesham, and allysonca)

EDIT:
1741258485013.png
(h/t fightingirish)
View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/9101002323/
 
Last edited:
[...]
  • 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.
Disagree with this, the Lightning is a short ranged aircraft, which was quite rightly not chosen for Australia. Starfighters are just as bad, if not worse.

Mirages were a much better option.


  • 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.
Hornets are not a good replacement for Vigilantes or F-111s. They have maybe half the range. It'd be better to take second-hand F-111s than Hornets!
 
Disagree with this, the Lightning is a short ranged aircraft, which was quite rightly not chosen for Australia. Starfighters are just as bad, if not worse.

Mirages were a much better option.
Later marks of Lightning (the ones the RAAF bought in my TL) carried more fuel.
Hornets are not a good replacement for Vigilantes or F-111s. They have maybe half the range. It'd be better to take second-hand F-111s than Hornets!
My source was the summary Dibb Report in "Flight International" which as far as I can remember recommended the purchase of strike-optimised Hornets to replace the F-111s.
 
Later marks of Lightning (the ones the RAAF bought in my TL) carried more fuel.

My source was the summary Dibb Report in "Flight International" which as far as I can remember recommended the purchase of strike-optimised Hornets to replace the F-111s.

The question is, was the Dibb Report more technical than political, or vice-versa?
 
The question is, was the Dibb Report more technical than political, or vice-versa?
Don't know if it was and don't know why that's relevant.

However, if I remember the "Flight International" article on the Defence White Paper that followed it correctly, the latter included huge chunks of the Dibb Report, including the strike-optimised Hornets. I may have the notes from the college library's copy of "Flight" upstairs in one of the many ring binders, that contain my pre-internet and pre-home computer/laptop notes.
 
Don't know if it was and don't know why that's relevant.

However, if I remember the "Flight International" article on the Defence White Paper that followed it correctly, the latter included huge chunks of the Dibb Report, including the strike-optimised Hornets. I may have the notes from the college library's copy of "Flight" upstairs in one of the many ring binders, that contain my pre-internet and pre-home computer/laptop notes.

I’ve an engineering/science background, so if the report was more political, then I’d see a greater chance of technical issues down the line - if it was more technical, conclusions are liable to be more solid, at least in engineering terms.
 
A Hornet only has a 400nmi combat range. When loaded for air-to-air only. I don't have a reference for how far one would fly with 4x2000lb bombs.

That doesn't replace a plane with a 1000nmi combat range.
That doesn't answer my question and IOTL the RAAF's F-111s were replaced by Hornets.
 
The Dibb Report was mostly political, for all it's faults it was the first purely Australian defence strategy.

The F111s were replaced by Super Hornets which have a combat radius of over 500nm compared to the classic which has a combat radius of about 360nm. Also Australia got tankers from the 80s, something our F111s never got for fear of annoying Indonesia.
 
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.
Maybe build an evolved Sea Hunter instead of buying Skyhawk.

Afterburning Avon, more highly swept wing, maybe single seat attack and tandem seat FAW versions.
 
Might as well talk of Etendard.
An option yes, but if Australia is building Hunters and Sea Hunters, an enhanced version is conceivable as in the real-world Australia did buy an extra batch of CAC Sabres instead of Starfighters in the late 50s. A transonic, even mildly supersonic Super Sea Hunter could be easier to sell to the Speed Nazis in the PM&C Scientific cadre, than a "slow" attack jet like the Skyhawk.

It would also make for a very interesting export product for existing Hunter users and keep the line going to potentially supply Hawker / BAC with new airframes to convert for export markets.
 
Might as well talk of Etendard.
No because a folded Etendard was twice the size of a folded Hunter and the point of the Sea Hunter is that one can get more of them aboard Melbourne (and Sydney and Brisbane) than one can Sea Venoms or Skyhawks and as you mentioned them Etendards.
 
Maybe build an evolved Sea Hunter instead of buying Skyhawk.

Afterburning Avon, more highly swept wing, maybe single seat attack and tandem seat FAW versions.
  • 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.
 
Might as well talk of Etendard.
No because a folded Etendard was twice the size of a folded Hunter and the point of the Sea Hunter is that one can get more of them aboard Melbourne (and Sydney and Brisbane) than one can Sea Venoms or Skyhawks and as you mentioned them Etendards.
Folded length and wingspan of certain naval aircraft.
  • 42ft 11in x 27ft 05in - A-4E Skyhawk (its wings didn't fold).
  • 47ft 03in x 25ft 07in - Etendard IVM.
  • 35ft 03in x 23ft 00in - Sea Venom FAW.53.
  • 34ft 08in x 16ft 01in - Sea Fury FB.11.
  • 37ft 11in x 13ft 06in - Firefly AS.6.
  • 37ft 04in x 13ft 04in - Navalised Hakwer P.1081.
  • 39ft 10in x 13ft 04in - Sea Hawk FGA.6.
  • 45ft 11in x 11ft 10in - Sea Hunter derived from Hunter F.6.
  • 48ft 11in x 11ft 10in - Sea Hunter derived from Hunter T.7
Therefore, the Sea Hunter is:
  • Somewhat longer than the Sea Venom, but its folded wingspan was considerably narrower;
  • A bit longer than the Skyhawk, but it's folded wingspan is a lot narrower.
    • And.
  • About the same length as an Etendard, but its folded wingspan is a lot narrower.
The hangar of a Majestic class aircraft carrier was 52ft wide. Therefore, it aught to be possible to stow Sea Hunters four-abreast, compared to three abreast for the Firefly, Sea Fury & Sea Hawk, two-breast for the Sea Venom and one-abreast for the Etendard and Skyhawk. It aught to make deck parking easier. However, some of what the Sea Hunter gains by being narrower is lost by being longer.

This is why I've been saying that Melbourne could have carried 50-to-100% more Sea Hunters than Sea Venoms and 100% more Sea Hunters than Skyhawks. As you've mentioned the Etendard, it looks like Melbourne could have carried 100% more Sea Hunters than Etendards.

How I worked it out.
  • The lengths for both Sea Hunters were 10½ inches, which I rounded up to the nearest inch to make the list easier to read.
  • The folded length of the Sea Hunter is an estimate made by measuring the line drawing of the Hunter F.6 on Page 382 of my copy of Putnams "RAF Aircraft since 1918", which is the eighth edition published in 1988.
  • I think (that in common with the Sea Hawk) the wings of the Sea Hunter would have folded at the wing roots.
  • And from the drawing it looks like the wings would fold within the span of the tailplane.
  • According to my measurements the wingspan was 57mm and the span of the tailplane was 20mm.
  • Therefore - (33ft 8in ÷ 57) x 20 = 11ft 10in.
Which is narrower than I expected, because I thought that the answer was about 12ft 6in when I did it before.

While I'm at it, these are the folded dimensions of some other naval aircraft.
  • 37ft 11in x 13ft 06in - Firefly AS.6.
  • 43ft 00in x 19ft 11in - Gannet AS.1
  • 44ft 00in x 19ft 11in - Gannet AEW.3.
  • 39ft 04in x 24ft 00in - Skyraider AEW.1
  • 43ft 06in x 27ft 04in - S-2D Tracker.
Therefore, a Gannet's nearly the same length as a Tracker, but it's narrow enough to stow two-abreast in the hangar of a Majestic class aircraft carrier, whereas a Tracker can only be stowed one-abreast. Being nearly 7½ narrower will make it possible to store more in the deck park. Therefore, the question is, what can the Tracker do that the Gannet can't that justifies its larger size?
 
Folded length and wingspan of certain naval aircraft.
  • 42ft 11in x 27ft 05in - A-4E Skyhawk (its wings didn't fold).
  • 47ft 03in x 25ft 07in - Etendard IVM.
  • 35ft 03in x 23ft 00in - Sea Venom FAW.53.
  • 34ft 08in x 16ft 01in - Sea Fury FB.11.
  • 37ft 11in x 13ft 06in - Firefly AS.6.
  • 37ft 04in x 13ft 04in - Navalised Hakwer P.1081.
  • 39ft 10in x 13ft 04in - Sea Hawk FGA.6.
  • 45ft 11in x 11ft 10in - Sea Hunter derived from Hunter F.6.
  • 48ft 11in x 11ft 10in - Sea Hunter derived from Hunter T.7
Therefore, the Sea Hunter is:
  • Somewhat longer than the Sea Venom, but its folded wingspan was considerably narrower;
  • A bit longer than the Skyhawk, but it's folded wingspan is a lot narrower.
    • And.
  • About the same length as an Etendard, but its folded wingspan is a lot narrower.
The hangar of a Majestic class aircraft carrier was 52ft wide. Therefore, it aught to be possible to stow Sea Hunters four-abreast, compared to three abreast for the Firefly, Sea Fury & Sea Hawk, two-breast for the Sea Venom and one-abreast for the Etendard and Skyhawk. It aught to make deck parking easier. However, some of what the Sea Hunter gains by being narrower is lost by being longer.

This is why I've been saying that Melbourne could have carried 50-to-100% more Sea Hunters than Sea Venoms and 100% more Sea Hunters than Skyhawks. As you've mentioned the Etendard, it looks like Melbourne could have carried 100% more Sea Hunters than Etendards.

How I worked it out.
  • The lengths for both Sea Hunters were 10½ inches, which I rounded up to the nearest inch to make the list easier to read.
  • The folded length of the Sea Hunter is an estimate made by measuring the line drawing of the Hunter F.6 on Page 382 of my copy of Putnams "RAF Aircraft since 1918", which is the eighth edition published in 1988.
  • I think (that in common with the Sea Hawk) the wings of the Sea Hunter would have folded at the wing roots.
  • And from the drawing it looks like the wings would fold within the span of the tailplane.
  • According to my measurements the wingspan was 57mm and the span of the tailplane was 20mm.
  • Therefore - (33ft 8in ÷ 57) x 20 = 11ft 10in.
Which is narrower than I expected, because I thought that the answer was about 12ft 6in when I did it before.

While I'm at it, these are the folded dimensions of some other naval aircraft.
  • 37ft 11in x 13ft 06in - Firefly AS.6.
  • 43ft 00in x 19ft 11in - Gannet AS.1
  • 44ft 00in x 19ft 11in - Gannet AEW.3.
  • 39ft 04in x 24ft 00in - Skyraider AEW.1
  • 43ft 06in x 27ft 04in - S-2D Tracker.
Therefore, a Gannet's nearly the same length as a Tracker, but it's narrow enough to stow two-abreast in the hangar of a Majestic class aircraft carrier, whereas a Tracker can only be stowed one-abreast. Being nearly 7½ narrower will make it possible to store more in the deck park. Therefore, the question is, what can the Tracker do that the Gannet can't that justifies its larger size?
I think the issue with the Gannet was the RN stopped developing it while the USN was still developing upgrades and improvements for the Tracker. Australia would have to go it alone as the RN retired theirs from ASW service and switched to helicopters.

I do like your thinking on the Sea Hunter, I've fantasized about similar but operating from RAN Centaurs or Implacables, I hadn't considered it for a Majestic. If the P-1081, Hunter etc. could have operated from a majestic, could a FJ-4B? I understand that there were issues with the Couger and Super Etendard off the smaller carriers?
 
I think the issue with the Gannet was the RN stopped developing it while the USN was still developing upgrades and improvements for the Tracker. Australia would have to go it alone as the RN retired theirs from ASW service and switched to helicopters.
Fair enough. Although the larger number of aircraft operated by the RAN in my version of the TL may make going it alone cost effective.
I do like your thinking on the Sea Hunter, I've fantasized about similar but operating from RAN Centaurs or Implacables, I hadn't considered it for a Majestic.
I don't see why not, that is, as long as her BS.4 steam catapult is powerful enough.
If the P-1081, Hunter etc. could have operated from a majestic, could a FJ-4B?
I don't see why not.

However, it's a bad idea because it's larger than than its British rivals so you don't get as many of them on a Majestic or a Centaur for that matter and giving Melbourne & her sisters bigger air groups is the whole point of substituting the Sea Hunter for the Sea Venom and Skyhawk. See earlier in the thread for more details.

Furthermore, and if you haven't noticed, I'm using the thread as an opportunity to delay the ADF's transition from mainly British equipment to mainly American equipment.
I understand that there were issues with the Cougar and Super Etendard off the smaller carriers?
No and yes.

The ARA managed to operate Super Etendards from Veinticinco de Mayo. She'd been modernised by the Dutch with a steam catapult, an 8½ degree angled flight deck and (IIRC) new lifts.

According to my "skim" through the Naval Encyclopaedia entry on Independencia, Cougars & Panthers could land on her, but not take off, presumably because her BH.3 hydraulic catapult wasn't powerful enough. As HMS Warrior she was the Colossus most heavily modernised by the RN and was the only ship to receive a 5½ angled flight deck.

I don't know why the Argentines didn't have her modernised to the same standard as the Brazilians had Minas Gerais (ex-Vengeance) by the Dutch or the same standard that the Indians had Vikrant (ex-Hercules) by the British. AFAIK (1) it wasn't a lack of money because AFAIK (2) Argentina was still the world's tenth richest country.

Fortunately, it's just as well that the Argentines didn't have Warrior properly modernised when they bought her or Karel Doorman would have augmented her rather than replaced her and the ARA would had two aircraft carriers in the Falklands War with double the number of Skyhawks, Super Etendards and air-launched Exocet missiles.
 
Fair enough. Although the larger number of aircraft operated by the RAN in my version of the TL may make going it alone cost effective.

I don't see why not, that is, as long as her BS.4 steam catapult is powerful enough.

I don't see why not.

However, it's a bad idea because it's larger than than its British rivals so you don't get as many of them on a Majestic or a Centaur for that matter and giving Melbourne & her sisters bigger air groups is the whole point of substituting the Sea Hunter for the Sea Venom and Skyhawk. See earlier in the thread for more details.

Furthermore, and if you haven't noticed, I'm using the thread as an opportunity to delay the ADF's transition from mainly British equipment to mainly American equipment.

No and yes.

The ARA managed to operate Super Etendards from Veinticinco de Mayo. She'd been modernised by the Dutch with a steam catapult, an 8½ degree angled flight deck and (IIRC) new lifts.

According to my "skim" through the Naval Encyclopaedia entry on Independencia, Cougars & Panthers could land on her, but not take off, presumably because her BH.3 hydraulic catapult wasn't powerful enough. As HMS Warrior she was the Colossus most heavily modernised by the RN and was the only ship to receive a 5½ angled flight deck.

I don't know why the Argentines didn't have her modernised to the same standard as the Brazilians had Minas Gerais (ex-Vengeance) by the Dutch or the same standard that the Indians had Vikrant (ex-Hercules) by the British. AFAIK (1) it wasn't a lack of money because AFAIK (2) Argentina was still the world's tenth richest country.

Fortunately, it's just as well that the Argentines didn't have Warrior properly modernised when they bought her or Karel Doorman would have augmented her rather than replaced her and the ARA would had two aircraft carriers in the Falklands War with double the number of Skyhawks, Super Etendards and air-launched Exocet missiles.
My thinking on the FJ-4B was more to do with my own, different alt history, where the RAAF and RAN adopt a locally built version in the late 50s instead of building the last batch of Sabres and buying the Skyhawk.

Personally, I love the idea of the Sea Hunter.
 
Last edited:
My thinking on the FJ-4B was more to do with my own, different alt history, where the RAAF and RAN adopt a locally built version in the late 60s instead of building the last batch of Sabres and buying the Skyhawk.
Is late 1960s a typo for late 1950s? The last Commonwealth built Sabre was delivered in 1961 and I proved that FJ-3 or 4 Furies could have been purchased from North American instead of the 39 Sea Venoms or FJ-3 or 4 Furies could have been built in Australia instead of buying 39 Sea Venoms from the UK earlier in the thread.
Personally, I love the idea of the Sea Hunter.
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.
 
Is late 1960s a typo for late 1950s? The last Commonwealth built Sabre was delivered in 1961 and I proved that FJ-3 or 4 Furies could have been purchased from North American instead of the 39 Sea Venoms or FJ-3 or 4 Furies could have been built in Australia instead of buying 39 Sea Venoms from the UK earlier in the thread.

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.
Typo, thanks will fix
 
All this talk of small aircraft footprint in order to cram a lot into a Majestic class makes me think of something I don't properly remember. I think British carriers had enough magazine space for each aircraft in the CAG to undertake 4 of its primary mission. For these WW2 carriers that would mean something like 24 Barracudas each carrying a small number of 500lb or 1000lb bombs 3 times and an 18" torpedo once. The something like 12-16 fighters had a lot more gun ammo, but all in all a Majestic might have ~20 torpedoes, a bit over 200 x 1000lb bombs or 3-400 x 500lb bombs or a mixture of both.

A CAG with lots of Gannets and Sea Hunters would go through that lot much faster than the 1945 piston engine CAG.
 
All this talk of small aircraft footprint in order to cram a lot into a Majestic class makes me think of something I don't properly remember. I think British carriers had enough magazine space for each aircraft in the CAG to undertake 4 of its primary mission. For these WW2 carriers that would mean something like 24 Barracudas each carrying a small number of 500lb or 1000lb bombs 3 times and an 18" torpedo once. The something like 12-16 fighters had a lot more gun ammo, but all in all a Majestic might have ~20 torpedoes, a bit over 200 x 1000lb bombs or 3-400 x 500lb bombs or a mixture of both.

A CAG with lots of Gannets and Sea Hunters would go through that lot much faster than the 1945 piston engine CAG.
Interesting analogy!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Point of order about number of Skyhawks you can Tetris into the Hangar!

A Skyhawk is basically a triangle, you can alternate directions of the aircraft and pack two birds into a 52ft wide hangar. Call it a 52x52 square.
 
Nope, Hawker's P.1117 twin Firestreak radar equipped naval fighter design did not get beyond interim brochure.
As far as i can ascertain, there was never any serious pushing of a 'Sea Hunter' proposal for the RN.
With fewer and fewer contracts, designs became more complex and capable, larger designs seemingly becoming the norm ?
The only type which seemingly countered the trend was the A-4 Skyhawk, an ideal design for the smaller 50's carriers
 

Attachments

  • FB_IMG_1741633282682.jpg
    FB_IMG_1741633282682.jpg
    47.5 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Hawker P.1117 twin Firestreak radar equipped naval fighter design did not get beyond interim brochure
As far as i can ascertain, there was never any serious pushing of a 'Sea Hunter' proposal for the RN.
With fewer and fewer contracts, designs became more complex and capable, larger designs seemingly becoming the norm ?
The only type which seemingly countered the trend was the A-4 Skyhawk, an ideal design for the smaller 50's carriers

Regrettably Archibald, I can't seem to open your link....

Regards
Pioneer
 
Hawker P.1117 twin Firestreak radar equipped naval fighter design did not get beyond interim brochure
As far as i can ascertain, there was never any serious pushing of a 'Sea Hunter' proposal for the RN.
With fewer and fewer contracts, designs became more complex and capable, larger designs seemingly becoming the norm ?
The only type which seemingly countered the trend was the A-4 Skyhawk, an ideal design for the smaller 50's carriers
Please excuse my ignorance, but is there a drawing/model depiction of the Hawker P.1117? It would be intriguing to see its proposed wing-foldung arrangement.
Would it have had an extended nose-wheel oleo?

Regards
Pioneer
 
Point of order about number of Skyhawks you can Tetris into the Hangar!

A Skyhawk is basically a triangle, you can alternate directions of the aircraft and pack two birds into a 52ft wide hangar. Call it a 52x52 square.
Show me some visual evidence of Skyhawks being parked like that in Melbourne's hangar. And I want two or more images to show that it was done on a regular basis.

I've seen dozens of photographs of aircraft in the hangars of British built aircraft carriers and they always show the aircraft columns, two or three abreast, with the aircraft usually to nearly always facing forward.

In any case.
  • 2 Skyhawks at 52ft x 52ft for the pair = 2,704sqft.
    • vs.
  • 4 single-seat Sea Hunters at 46ft x 12ft each = 2,208sqft.
    • And.
  • 4 two-seat Sea Hunters at 49 x 12ft each = 2,352sqft.
Therefore, one can put 4 Sea Hunters in the same space as 2 Skyhawks with room to spare and I've rounded the Sea Hunter's dimensions up to the nearest foot.

Melbourne's hangar was 445ft long, which means that
  • Using your calculation a maximum of
    • 16 Skyhawks could be accommodated in Melbourne's hangar.
  • Using my calculations a maximum of.
    • 32 two-seat Sea Hunters could be stowed four abreast in Melbourne's hangar.
      • And.
    • 36 single-seat Hunters could be stowed four-abreast in Melbourne's hangar.
My calculations included a minimum clearance of two feet between each Sea Hunter (front and back). I freely admit that the clearances at the side would be tight as there would only be 4ft 8in of clear space (11ft 10in x 4 = 47ft 4in) in her 52ft wide hangar. However, 24 two-seat Sea Hunters and 27 single-seat Sea Hunters could be stored three-abreast with ease.
 
Last edited:
Hawker P.1117 twin Firestreak radar equipped naval fighter design did not get beyond interim brochure
As far as i can ascertain, there was never any serious pushing of a 'Sea Hunter' proposal for the RN.
With fewer and fewer contracts, designs became more complex and capable, larger designs seemingly becoming the norm ?
The only type which seemingly countered the trend was the A-4 Skyhawk, an ideal design for the smaller 50's carriers
However, there was a serious proposal for a Sea Swift. It got as far as an having 20 ordered for swept-wing familiarisation trials. That was my inspiration for the Sea Hunter. I intended to write more about the Sea Swift and substituting the Sea Hunter for it ITTL, but I have to do some important real life and I spent more time than expected writing Message 274.
 
Show me some visual evidence of Skyhawks being parked like that in Melbourne's hangar. And I want two or more images to show that it was done on a regular basis.

I've seen dozens of photographs of aircraft in the hangars of British built aircraft carriers and they're always show the aircraft columns, two or three abreast, with the aircraft usually to nearly always facing forward.
While every picture I've ever seen of a USN carrier hangar has had the jets packed alternating. Especially Tomcats.
 
The purpose of a carrier isn't to park more planes, but to fly more times. Apparently the smaller USN CVWs of the 2000s fly more sorties than the huge CVWs of the 80s, although the loss of range is lamented.. The aim should be not to cram in as many aircraft as possible but to fit as many aircraft as can be optimally launched and recovered in each cycle, optimally maintained using the available facilities and make the best use of fixed spares, ordnance, fuel and other consumable stocks. Majestics have a single catapult and limited deck parking space, if they had ~30 aircraft that folded down small would they be able to fly 2/3 of them in a single cycle, as RN experience showed was the upper end of normal practice? Even with an increased angle landing deck I doubt there's room to park 20 small folded fighters at Fly 1.
 
The purpose of a carrier isn't to park more planes, but to fly more times. Apparently the smaller USN CVWs of the 2000s fly more sorties than the huge CVWs of the 80s, although the loss of range is lamented.. The aim should be not to cram in as many aircraft as possible but to fit as many aircraft as can be optimally launched and recovered in each cycle, optimally maintained using the available facilities and make the best use of fixed spares, ordnance, fuel and other consumable stocks. Majestics have a single catapult and limited deck parking space, if they had ~30 aircraft that folded down small would they be able to fly 2/3 of them in a single cycle, as RN experience showed was the upper end of normal practice? Even with an increased angle landing deck I doubt there's room to park 20 small folded fighters at Fly 1.
For what it's worth (1) cramming as many aircraft as they can into an aircraft carrier is exactly what navies do in practice. Especially, the British.

For what it's worth (2) during the Korean War Sydney and the RN Colossus class aircraft carriers carried 35-40 aircraft, which is more than I'm proposing for the RAN's Majestic class aircraft carriers post-1955.
 
For what it's worth (1) cramming as many aircraft as they can into an aircraft carrier is exactly what navies do in practice. Especially, the British.

For what it's worth (2) during the Korean War Sydney and the RN Colossus class aircraft carriers carried 35-40 aircraft, which is more than I'm proposing for the RAN's Majestic class aircraft carriers post-1955.

The RN crammed in smaller and smaller numbers of bigger and more capable aircraft each generation.

The Sydney carried 38 Sea Furies and Fireflies, which positively sipped fuel compared to later jets, although switching from volatile AVGAS to more stable jet fuel did increase fuel capacity for the CAG.

From Wiki;
Sydney
completed seven patrols during her 122-day Korean deployment: flying operations were conducted for 42.8 days, poor weather stopped operations for 11.7 days, transits to and from the operational area or between assignments consumed 29.5 days, and 38 days were spent in harbour. During this time, RAN Sea Furies flew 1,623 sorties, while the Fireflies flew 743, with the aircraft using 802 bombs, 6,359 rockets, and 269,249 rounds of 20-millimetre (0.79 in) ammunition between them.

As aircraft become more powerful those ordnance stores will be used by fewer and fewer aircraft.
 
The RN crammed in smaller and smaller numbers of bigger and more capable aircraft each generation.

The Sydney carried 38 Sea Furies and Fireflies, which positively sipped fuel compared to later jets, although switching from volatile AVGAS to more stable jet fuel did increase fuel capacity for the CAG.

From Wiki;
Sydney
completed seven patrols during her 122-day Korean deployment: flying operations were conducted for 42.8 days, poor weather stopped operations for 11.7 days, transits to and from the operational area or between assignments consumed 29.5 days, and 38 days were spent in harbour. During this time, RAN Sea Furies flew 1,623 sorties, while the Fireflies flew 743, with the aircraft using 802 bombs, 6,359 rockets, and 269,249 rounds of 20-millimetre (0.79 in) ammunition between them.

As aircraft become more powerful those ordnance stores will be used by fewer and fewer aircraft.
It won't surprise you to learn that I disagree.

During World War II the RN packed as many aircraft as it could into its aircraft carriers once the number of available aircraft was greater than their hangar capacity. That was regardless of whether the ships had the accommodation for the extra aircrew & the extra groundcrew, regardless of whether they had the ordnance for the extra aircraft, regardless of whether the ships had the aviation fuel for the extra aircraft and whether they could hold spare parts for the extra aircraft.

It did the same for Korea. It did the same for the Falklands. I suspect that the same would have happened if the Indonesian Confrontation had escalated from a cold war into a warm war and I suspect that the same would have been done in the event of World War III.

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.

After the Falklands the Invincible class had the number of Sea Harriers in their fighter squadrons increased from 5 to 8 and a flight of 3 AEW Sea Kings was added. Their flight decks were extended (in part by removing the Sea Dart) so they could carry more aircraft as part of their mid-life modernisations. IIRC removing the Sea Dart also released space for larger ordnance magazines for the air group and I suspect removing the Sea Dart released accommodation for more grown crew.

IIRC from Hobbs, the CVA.01 class was to have had a peacetime air group of 47 aircraft and a wartime air group of 62 aircraft. I don't know, but I suspect, that the training squadrons would have been broken up to provide the extra aircraft, aircrew and groundcrew. I suspect, this is an important reason for the different estimates in the size of her crew. With the low estimates being her peace crew with an air group of 47 aircraft and the high estimates being her war crew with an air group of 62 aircraft.

And I think we're at cross purposes again.

In the case of my wish to substitute the Sea Venom with the Sea Hunter, I want to substitute an aircraft from one generation (Sea Venom) with another aircraft (Sea Hunter) which is sort-of the same generation and sort-of the same capability. The difference is that 50-to-100 per cent more Sea Hunters can be carried because its folded wingspan is much narrower than the Sea Venom's.

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.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom