Cold Warriors: The Essex Class in the Cold War

[SSgtC]

So the RAAF will not get the F-111 most likley as they did in OTL, shame, i always liked the a dump-and-burn.

Also i think the quote from Benny Murdani, Indonesian defense minister in the 1980s, told his Australian counterpart Kim Beazley that when others became upset with Australia during Indonesian cabinet meetings, Murdani told them "Do you realise the Australians have a bomber that can put a bomb through that window on to the table here in front of us?" will not happen, ore will it.

It's a case of in service dates. They love the proposed specifications of the three designs, but they feel that they can't wait 10+ years for it to enter service.

 

[starviking]

July 4, 1958
Canberra, Australia Capital Territory, Australia

While the two men had initially discussed combining both services fighter and bomber programs together, the decision had ultimately been made to only combine the fighter programs, as the requirements for each respective service's attack aircraft were far too different to make a combined program work to everyone's satisfaction. In the morning, a revised Fighter Specification would be issued along with enquires to the various manufacturers as to their aircraft's suitability to carrier operations.

So any developments on the bomber requirement(s)?

The Vulcan and B-47 have been eliminated while the TSR-2 and the two proposed future F-111 designs from Boeing and General Dynamics have been told that, while they are not officially eliminated, there is a less than 5% chance of them being selected.

Dah-dah-da-da-DA...dah-dah-da-da-DA...dah-da-da-da-dee-dee-dee! (Ride of the ...?)

 

[JohnR]

What about Australia's Most Studied Aircraft?????

 

[lordroel]

What about Australia's Most Studied Aircraft?????

Can you give a hint for those who do not know what it is.

 

[Archibald]

I thought it was the B-1 and America - Most Studied Aircraft ?

(Advanced Manned Strategic Penetrator = AMSA = 1961- 1969)

 

[JohnR]

I thought it was the B-1 and America - Most Studied Aircraft ?

(Advanced Manned Strategic Penetrator = AMSA = 1961- 1969)

Indeed it is but as Starviking had made a joke about the Valkyrie, I thought I'd have a go at the B1....

 

[Archibald]

In French Wagner "Ride of the Valkyries" is translated as "la chevauchée des Valkyries"

The running joke is - its sounds very much like "la chevauchée des vaches-qui-rient" a lame pun with this peculiar brand of french cheese... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Laughing_Cow

"Ride of the laughing cows"

 

[GTX]

So the RAAF will not get the F-111 most likley as they did in OTL, shame, i always liked the a dump-and-burn.

The F-111 was not the only aircraft that could do a Dump & Burn...

 

[SSgtC]

So the RAAF will not get the F-111 most likley as they did in OTL, shame, i always liked the a dump-and-burn.

The F-111 was not the only aircraft that could do a Dump & Burn...

Gotta love the Vigilante. The Tomcat could do it too

 

[JohnR]

Was there a point to Dump and Burn besides display pyrotechnics?

 

[SSgtC]

Was there a point to Dump and Burn besides display pyrotechnics?

Impromptu decoy for IR homing missiles, maybe? Other than that, I can't think of anything beyond "it looks cool."

 

[GTX]

Have been thinking a bit more. I wonder if a way to get F-4s operating more easily from the Essex class (for Australians and others...) would be to do an early version of the F-4E(F)? That is, take something such as the F-4B and remove the back seater and perhaps limit it to 4 AIM-9s and only 2 AIM-7s.

 

[lordroel]

Was there a point to Dump and Burn besides display pyrotechnics?

Impromptu decoy for IR homing missiles, maybe? Other than that, I can't think of anything beyond "it looks cool."

Also a good way to get of your fuel you need to fly.

 

[SSgtC]

Have been thinking a bit more. I wonder if a way to get F-4s operating more easily from the Essex class (for Australians and others...) would be to fo an early version of the F-4E(F)? That is, take something such as the F-4B and remove the back seater and perhaps limit it to 4 AIM-9s and only 2 AIM-7s.

That really wouldn't help much. In an air-to-air configuration, you could launch one from an Essex no problem. With 4xSparrows and 4xSidewinders with full internal fuel, it was only 45,000 pounds. So could be launched easily. The issue with flying them from the class, that the Navy stressed to Congress repeatedly, was that the aircraft guzzled JP-5. And the Essex class could only hold so much.

 

[isayyo2]

I think the RAAF would be looking for a qualitative edge over those Indonesian Migs, more Sparrows the better.

 

[SSgtC]

I think the RAAF would be looking for a qualitative edge over those Indonesian Migs, more Sparrows the better.

Particularly since this is pre-Vietnam and the issues with the Sparrow's accuracy and ability to engage maneuvering targets aren't really known yet

 

[Volkodav]

The Argentine purchase of a Essex would have made the Falklands Conflict an interesting proposition for the RN, unless US intervention would have prevented its use. Although what would its airgroup have been, would they have had longer legs than as historical.

If the RN knows that Argentina has an Essex, no way in hell Eagle gets the axe in 67-72 instead of cranky Ark Royal. Also, Hermes would not lose its catapults. For a start. Earlier in time, CVA-01 would not be allowed to die, at least not without a valid replacement. Which might very well be - the irony ! a couple of rebuild Essex... for example, the WWII crippled Bunker Hill and Franklin, thoroughly rebuild.

Sadly, since when has strategic imperatives had much if any impact on House of Commons defence policy? Numbers would still have been fudged and cuts made.

 

[lordroel]

The Argentine purchase of a Essex would have made the Falklands Conflict an interesting proposition for the RN, unless US intervention would have prevented its use. Although what would its airgroup have been, would they have had longer legs than as historical.

If the RN knows that Argentina has an Essex, no way in hell Eagle gets the axe in 67-72 instead of cranky Ark Royal. Also, Hermes would not lose its catapults. For a start. Earlier in time, CVA-01 would not be allowed to die, at least not without a valid replacement. Which might very well be - the irony ! a couple of rebuild Essex... for example, the WWII crippled Bunker Hill and Franklin, thoroughly rebuild.

Sadly, since when has strategic imperatives had much if any impact on House of Commons defence policy? Numbers would still have been fudged and cuts made.

Would they, even with Indonesia being bigger threat then OTL.

 

[Volkodav]

The Argentine purchase of a Essex would have made the Falklands Conflict an interesting proposition for the RN, unless US intervention would have prevented its use. Although what would its airgroup have been, would they have had longer legs than as historical.

If the RN knows that Argentina has an Essex, no way in hell Eagle gets the axe in 67-72 instead of cranky Ark Royal. Also, Hermes would not lose its catapults. For a start. Earlier in time, CVA-01 would not be allowed to die, at least not without a valid replacement. Which might very well be - the irony ! a couple of rebuild Essex... for example, the WWII crippled Bunker Hill and Franklin, thoroughly rebuild.

Sadly, since when has strategic imperatives had much if any impact on House of Commons defence policy? Numbers would still have been fudged and cuts made.

Would they, even with Indonesia being bigger threat then OTL.

I was referring to the UK but when you look at Australia in the period being discussed here Australia's over arching strategy was to get the US engaged in the region and provide light (read cheap) forces to support coalition / alliance activities. The bomber / Canberra replacement was a political issue the opposition was using effectively against the government of the day and the state of the art, but long delayed F-111 was the perfect solution, i.e. the government was seen to be doing something but that something (and the money required) was well into the future.

 

[uk 75]

The RAAF were reportedly very happy with the F4s they received to fill in for the F111s. They might have been worth having anyway.
I dont really see an alternative to the A4 for Australia mated to the Melbourne. An Essex with F8s and ASW stuff would have had about the same timeframe and needed replacing in the 80s. Much easier to let the USN provide carriers for the region.
The UK used NATO to let the USAF provide two whole wings of UK based F111s. With US B52s on Guam and forward deployable, the RAAF could have done what the RAF did and use cheaper substitutes like F4s and Buccaneers. Aussie Buccaneer S50s in Naam?

 

[Volkodav]

The RAAF were reportedly very happy with the F4s they received to fill in for the F111s. They might have been worth having anyway.
I dont really see an alternative to the A4 for Australia mated to the Melbourne. An Essex with F8s and ASW stuff would have had about the same timeframe and needed replacing in the 80s. Much easier to let the USN provide carriers for the region.
The UK used NATO to let the USAF provide two whole wings of UK based F111s. With US B52s on Guam and forward deployable, the RAAF could have done what the RAF did and use cheaper substitutes like F4s and Buccaneers. Aussie Buccaneer S50s in Naam?

The F-4s were leased as an interim solution following further delays to the F-111 rectification of the wing carry through box, there was however a more permanent solution considered in the late 60s if the F-111 order had to be cancelled. The fall back was for three squadrons of F-4E (36), one of RF-4C(or maybe E)(6?) and a squadron of KC-135s (12?) to replace the expected capability 24 F-111C and 6 RF-111 would deliver.

 

[GTX]

I'm trying to stay within the bounds of the scenario in this ATL.

Re missiles: My mention of 4 x AIM-9 + 2 x AIM-7 would still be more than the alternates of the Mirage III (2 x R.550/AIM-9 + 1× R.530) or F-104 (Typically 2 - 4 x aIM-9 though possibly up to 4 x AIM-9 + 2 x AIM-7 in the latter F-104S). BTW, given the ranges of radars, missiles, combat in general anything more than 2 AIM-7s would probably be a waste since the opposing forces would merge too quickly. About the only scenario where more aIM-7s would be of use would be the bomber interceptor role where you would possibly be lobbing missiles in from afar.

Re use on the Essex class, I always thought the issue was the weight (both taking off and landing.

Re use of F-4s rather than F-111s - well, that is outside of the way this scenario is already going...

Re use of F-8s - ditto last point...

 

[SSgtC]

I'm trying to stay within the bounds of the scenario in this ATL.

Re missiles: My mention of 4 x AIM-9 + 2 x AIM-7 would still be more than the alternates of the Mirage III (2 x R.550/AIM-9 + 1× R.530) or F-104 (Typically 2 - 4 x aIM-9 though possibly up to 4 x AIM-9 + 2 x AIM-7 in the latter F-104S). BTW, given the ranges of radars, missiles, combat in general anything more than 2 AIM-7s would probably be a waste since the opposing forces would merge too quickly. About the only scenario where more aIM-7s would be of use would be the bomber interceptor role where you would possibly be lobbing missiles in from afar.

Re use on the Essex class, I always thought the issue was the weight (both taking off and landing.

Re use of F-4s rather than F-111s - well, that is outside of the way this scenario is already going...

Re use of F-8s - ditto last point...

Not really. The C11-1 could launch a 45,000 pound aircraft at about 130 knots. Even at its max launch weight of 56,000 pounds, the C11-1 could get a Phantom up to about 120 knots by itself. The Essex class could give you a sustained 19 knots during high intensity flight ops (that's diverting enough steam from propulsion to the cats to deliver full power cat shots with launches every 30 seconds). So weight wise, the Essex class could easily handle them. It's the fuel and ammunition that are the main reasons the Navy kept them off the class. Keep in mind, the Midway class had the exact same catapults and they operated them just fine (though the Midway class could maintain 23 knots during high intensity flight operations).

 

[GTX]

Hmmm...interesting. So what sort of limitations are we talking about and could a smaller navy perhaps live with them?

 

[SSgtC]

August 5, 1958
Washington, DC, USA

The Senate Armed Services Committee hears arguments both for and against the proposed transfer of ex-Leyte to Argentina. Several of the Senators express reservations about transferring a fully operational fleet carrier, and it's associated air wing, to another country. The hearings last several hours and though not all of the concerns raised by the Senators are allayed, the committee is showing favorable signs of approving the transfer. The Armed Services Committee adjourns the hearing for the day with plans to reconvene the next day.

 

[isayyo2]

Ahhh that's the fix I needed for today.

 

[JohnR]

What was the speed reduction (if any) on the later carriers during high tempo operations.

 

[SSgtC]

August 6, 1958
Washington, DC, USA

The Senate Armed Services Committee reconvenes to consider the transfer of ex-Leyte to Argentina. To allay some of the Senator's concerns, Argentina's agreement not to use the carrier against American allies is emphasized, as is Argentina's close historic relationship with the United States. In an effort to get the transfer approved, a second provision is proposed. The United States Navy will have the right to inspect Leyte and any American supplied combat aircraft at any time to ensure that neither the ship nor the aircraft have been modified to store, maintain or employ nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. This provision, along with the understanding that the United States Navy will inspect the ship at least once a year, placates the most opposed Senators. After further discussions, a vote is held and the transfer is approved by a vote of 6 in favor to 3 opposed. The proposal is then sent on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for their approval.

The hearing before the Foreign Relations Committee is much more pro forma than the one before the Armed Services Committee. Primarily because the majority of the Senator's concerns have already been resolved by the various restrictions placed on the use of the carrier. After a three hour discussion, the sale is approved.

 

[SSgtC]

What was the speed reduction (if any) on the later carriers during high tempo operations.

I believe that it was down into the same 20-25 knot range, but I'm not 100% sure on that. I know that the Navy has admitted that they still deal with the loss of speed during flight operations even today.

 

[SSgtC]

August 10, 1958
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

An intelligence report is delivered to the heads of the Royal Australian Air Force and the Royal Australian Navy. It is from a well placed source in Indonesia. Attached to the report are two grainy photographs. One shows a fighter very similar to Indonesia's MiG-17s, though with some differences. The other has a much large aircraft in it. The sleek, twin engined bomber fills the frame of the photograph. The report that the photos are stapled to provides the explanation. The pictured aircraft are the first MiG-19s and Tu-16s delivered to the Indonesian Air Force. They had arrived just over a week ago.

The new information nearly throws both services into a panic. The new aircraft thoroughly outclassed every fighter and bomber type in the Air Force and the Fleet Air Arm. This development lent new urgency to the planned replacements for the Air Force and Navy. At a joint meeting, a decision is made to narrow the field even further. Messages are sent to Lockheed, Hawker and Dassault that their aircraft were no longer under consideration to fulfill the joint fighter specification that had been issued a month earlier. The primary reason given to Lockheed and Dassault is the lack of carrier suitability in their designs and the length of time required to modify the design to allow carrier operations. The reason provided to Hawker is that the projected in service date is too far in the future and, again, the lack of a naval variant. Concurrently with the rejection messages, requests are delivered to Grumman, McDonnell and Vought asking for their final, best proposals for the F11F-1F, F4H-1 and F8U-3 fighters. Responses are required no latter than August thirty-first.

In conjunction with the fighter specification, the Royal Australian Navy begins preparing a proposal to replace Melbourne. Though the carrier was still nearly new, it was nearly entirely incapable of operating the next generation of carrier aircraft. The rough outline of the proposal requires a ship no smaller than an American Essex class carrier and with the ability to operate the most modern combat aircraft. Getting the government to pay for it though would be far easier said than done.

 

[Archibald]

IT'S HAPPENIIIIING !!!

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

 

[Archibald]

Concurrently with the rejection messages, requests are delivered to Grumman, McDonnell and Vought asking for their final, best proposals for the F11F-1F, F4H-1 and F8U-3 fighters.

Salivating.

Alas, I also really fear cold pragmatism will win in the end. Only the goddam Phantom has the USN seal of approval... the other two, even fantastic machines, have not.

And once again, the perenial debate: can Phantom and SBC-125A Essex have a happy marriage ?

Phantoms can fly out of Essex.

The latest issue in a four years old debate started at AH.com and seemingly never ending: Phantoms need large amount of kerosene and ammunitions... and the Essex were designed to fuel and arm F4U, not F4H (God bless the USN pre-1962 dumbarse designation system lol - miss a letter, and turn piston engine fighters into mach 2 monsters)

 

[SSgtC]

Concurrently with the rejection messages, requests are delivered to Grumman, McDonnell and Vought asking for their final, best proposals for the F11F-1F, F4H-1 and F8U-3 fighters.

Salivating.

Alas, I also really fear cold pragmatism will win in the end. Only the goddam Phantom has the USN seal of approval... the other two, even fantastic machines, have not.

And once again, the perenial debate: can Phantom and SBC-125A Essex have a happy marriage ?

Phantoms can fly out of Essex.

The latest issue in a four years old debate started at AH.com and seemingly never ending: Phantoms need large amount of kerosene and ammunitions... and the Essex were designed to fuel and arm F4U, not F4H (God bless the USN pre-1962 dumbarse designation system lol - miss a letter, and turn piston engine fighters into mach 2 monsters)

On the plus side, all 3 aircraft are flying and are carrier capable. Personally, i like the USN designation system. It's complicated at first, but once you understand it, it's not bad.

 

[Archibald]

If you need so, I'm not short of ideas to make the Super Tiger a slightly more viable option.
A small POD would be to get four, not two, of them build from 1955.

The OTL aircraft that flew were F-11F-1F , which exactly mean "two Tigers with a J79 instead of a J65".

Back in 1955 however the USN very nearly made a contract to Grumman for two F-12F, which exactly meant "two Super Tigers plus more goodies". The contract never happened, it was canned early 1956 because Crusader (meh).

Considering that OTL F-11F-1F very nearly swept the JASDF instead of goddam F-104s (according to Corky Meyer), maybe the F-12F would carry the day definitively.

See that link for the difference between the two "Super Tiger" variants.

One More Time, The Grumman F12F

This is not the Grumman F12F: It is the Grumman Design 118, proposed to the Navy in December 1955. The Navy rejected it because they di...

thanlont.blogspot.com

 

[lordroel]

August 6, 1958
Washington, DC, USA

a vote of 6 in favor to 3 opposed. The proposal is then sent on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for their approval.

Was it party based the vote.

 

[SSgtC]

August 6, 1958
Washington, DC, USA

a vote of 6 in favor to 3 opposed. The proposal is then sent on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for their approval.

Was it party based the vote.

No. Partisanship wasn't nearly as bad then as it is today. Three members just didn't agree with selling anyone in South America an aircraft carrier or modern first line fighters and attack aircraft

 

[SSgtC]

If you need so, I'm not short of ideas to make the Super Tiger a slightly more viable option.
A small POD would be to get four, not two, of them build from 1955.

The OTL aircraft that flew were F-11F-1F , which exactly mean "two Tigers with a J79 instead of a J65".

Back in 1955 however the USN very nearly made a contract to Grumman for two F-12F, which exactly meant "two Super Tigers plus more goodies". The contract never happened, it was canned early 1956 because Crusader (meh).

Considering that OTL F-11F-1F very nearly swept the JASDF instead of goddam F-104s (according to Corky Meyer), maybe the F-12F would carry the day definitively.

See that link for the difference between the two "Super Tiger" variants.

One More Time, The Grumman F12F

This is not the Grumman F12F: It is the Grumman Design 118, proposed to the Navy in December 1955. The Navy rejected it because they di...

thanlont.blogspot.com

I've got a number of ideas myself for it. The Super Tiger was a huge missed opportunity for the West. It came this close to winning in Japan, Germany and Switzerland.

 

[lordroel]

August 10, 1958
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia



In conjunction with the fighter specification, the Royal Australian Navy begins preparing a proposal to replace Melbourne. Though the carrier was still nearly new, it was nearly entirely incapable of operating the next generation of carrier aircraft. The rough outline of the proposal requires a ship no smaller than an American Essex class carrier and with the ability to operate the most modern combat aircraft. Getting the government to pay for it though would be far easier said than done.

Would India like to have Melbourne if she gets sold.

 

[SSgtC]

August 10, 1958
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia



In conjunction with the fighter specification, the Royal Australian Navy begins preparing a proposal to replace Melbourne. Though the carrier was still nearly new, it was nearly entirely incapable of operating the next generation of carrier aircraft. The rough outline of the proposal requires a ship no smaller than an American Essex class carrier and with the ability to operate the most modern combat aircraft. Getting the government to pay for it though would be far easier said than done.

Would India like to have Melbourne if she gets sold.

It's a possibility. As is Brazil, with an outside shot for the Philippines and Japan

 

[lordroel]

August 10, 1958
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia



In conjunction with the fighter specification, the Royal Australian Navy begins preparing a proposal to replace Melbourne. Though the carrier was still nearly new, it was nearly entirely incapable of operating the next generation of carrier aircraft. The rough outline of the proposal requires a ship no smaller than an American Essex class carrier and with the ability to operate the most modern combat aircraft. Getting the government to pay for it though would be far easier said than done.

Would India like to have Melbourne if she gets sold.

It's a possibility. As is Brazil, with an outside shot for the Philippines and Japan

Japan getting a carrier, only 13 years after the end of the war, that is going to upset a lot of neighbors.