lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 17, 2020 15:32:50 GMT
So googling about the Essex i found out that an unmodernised Essex was offered to the Royal Australian Navy in 1960 as a replacement for HMAS Melbourne but the offer was declined due to the expense of modifications required to make it operationally compatible with the RAN's primarily British-designed fleet.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 17, 2020 16:33:08 GMT
So googling about the Essex i found out that an unmodernised Essex was offered to the Royal Australian Navy in 1960 as a replacement for HMAS Melbourne but the offer was declined due to the expense of modifications required to make it operationally compatible with the RAN's primarily British-designed fleet. NewGolconda posted about the 1965 Study over on Warships! But that was for a 27C Essex class. The advantage of an un-rebuilt is the ship would have little service life so far, and could be rebuilt to the RAN's specifications. Of course, there would also be costs of rebuilding, but the Essex class has the hangar floor as the strength deck. The flight deck is a superstructure built on top of it. So take off the old superstructure and build a new one, with minimal work inside the hull. I'm sure plumbing the steam catapults and modifying the magazines for modern munitions would be the biggest jobs.
My thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 17, 2020 16:53:48 GMT
So googling about the Essex i found out that an unmodernised Essex was offered to the Royal Australian Navy in 1960 as a replacement for HMAS Melbourne but the offer was declined due to the expense of modifications required to make it operationally compatible with the RAN's primarily British-designed fleet. NewGolconda posted about the 1965 Study over on Warships! But that was for a 27C Essex class. The advantage of an un-rebuilt is the ship would have little service life so far, and could be rebuilt to the RAN's specifications. Of course, there would also be costs of rebuilding, but the Essex class has the hangar floor as the strength deck. The flight deck is a superstructure built on top of it. So take off the old superstructure and build a new one, with minimal work inside the hull. I'm sure plumbing the steam catapults and modifying the magazines for modern munitions would be the biggest jobs.
My thoughts,
Thanks for the map 1bigrich , helps a lot. Did find these two docmnets when reading the RAN Essex class on Secret Projects: A REPLACEMENT AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND FIXED WING AIRCRAFT FOR THE R.A. N PART IA REPLACEMENT AIRCRAFT CARRIER AND FIXED WING AIRCRAFT FOR THE R.A. N PART IIWould the RAN Essex have F-4 Phantoms in use, the RAAF used them for 3 years in 1970 to 1973 ore would the Essex still operate the A-4 until the F-18 arives. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 17, 2020 17:34:42 GMT
Great pics in that on Secret Projects. These two: Lead to this thread. Are they supposed to be links to another site? I think they could in the Fleet Defense role, but the RAN was very operational cost conscious. F-8s could do the job as well, but if the RAN is sticking with the A-4 as an attack type and the E-1 Tracer and S-2 Tracker in the AEW and ASW roles, the A-4 might have to do the role, as it did historically. The F/A-18 Hornet wasn't introduced until 1983, so by that time the ship will be at the end of her service life. You might find this post www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/fictional-navy-inventory-fleets-aircraft.478753/page-2#post-19840705entertaining for a possible replacement. Regards, |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 17, 2020 17:48:03 GMT
Great pics in that on Secret Projects. These two: Lead to this thread. Are they supposed to be links to another site? Sorry seems they will not take the documents that are posted on that thread. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 17, 2020 17:51:25 GMT
The F/A-18 Hornet wasn't introduced until 1983, so by that time the ship will be at the end of her service life. So only, a 10 to 15 year service for a Essex in service with the RAN. |
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Aug 17, 2020 19:37:41 GMT
So only, a 10 to 15 year service for a Essex in service with the RAN.
The RAN had their doubts about a modified Essex serving 18 years, but most of the US rebuilds served that long or nearly that long.
Your original post specified a 1960 consideration of a modified Essex; I'm thinking that such a ship would probably be acted on 1961, and in service in 1964-65 after modernization (assuming rebuilding one of the still-baseline/straight deck Essex class in Mothballs, like Bunker Hill or Franklin). 1965 to 1983 would be 18 years. Unless the RAN plans something like the USN's Service Life Extension Program to get an additional decade or 15 years out her, I don't think it would be worth it to have them operate Hornets. Even then, the money for a SLEP would probably be better spent on a replacement, like the CVV or a 50,000 ton carrier.
Now if the Essex were decided on in 1965, probably in service 1969-1970, then with 18 years of life, she would still have five years left in 1983, so going to F-18s might be worth it, especially if the RAAF is also using the type.
my thoughts,
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 18, 2020 3:20:09 GMT
so going to F-18s might be worth it, especially if the RAAF is also using the type.
Only worth i guess if after the Essex Australia goes for a new carrier i think. |
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Aug 22, 2020 19:08:11 GMT
So, I've done a lot of digging on this. The USN offered the the RAN Philippine Sea (CV-47). She was an unmodified Essex class that had been decommissioned in 1958 after 12.5 years of service. She had seen no service in WWII (in fact she was only commissioned in 1946), but did deploy to Korea 3 times as an Attack Carrier. After Korea, and with the first SCB-27 ships coming online, she was downgraded to an antisubmarine carrier. The offer to Australia was to modernize her to SCB-125A standard with several key changes, the first being a steel flight deck instead of aluminum clad wood. The rest involved fitting British radios, radars and other equipment as needed to give her greater interoperability with the RAN fleet. (IIRC, there was also a proposal to fit her to American standards as the RAN was considering converting, and ultimately did, to mainly American supplied equipment). Had Australia taken up the US on their offer in 1960, she could have been refitted and in service by 1963 (the average SCB-27/125 overhaul took between 26 and 28 months).
As for the air group, Australia wanted Phantoms. They were not interested in the Crusader as they very concerned by Indonesia's purchase of TU-16 bombers and antiship missiles. They wanted an effective counter to that threat. And that means Phantom. However, there were concerns about launching fully loaded Phantoms from an Essex in hot and humid weather, the default weather in the part of the world that the RAN planned to operate in. So the USN studied it and offered a baseline F4H-1 (F-4B) modified with a double extended nose wheel, slats and drooping ailerons (essentially an F-4K minus the Spey and blown flaps). That configuration was expected to reduce WOD speed by approximately 17 knots, allowing a C11-1 cat to launch a fully loaded Phantom at 90° temperatures in humid air.
In the end, the proposal was turned down for several reasons. Surprisingly, cost to modify her wasn't the main one. It was the cost to man her. Between ship's crew and the air group, an Essex needed some 3,000 sailors. That was over twice as many as Melbourne. The RAN decided they could not realistically afford to man her. The second, and probably bigger reason, is that Indonesia became much less of a threat in 67 shortly after the RAN steered looking at it again. Indonesia went from Soviet to Western leaning after a coup. That reduced the need for a strike carrier greatly. There was also a squabble with the RAAF about whether an attack carrier was really needed when they were buying F-111s that could strike Indonesia from home soil.
In the end, Australia had only a small window from 60 to about 62 when an Essex class could have been feasibly purchased.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 22, 2020 19:11:44 GMT
So, I've done a lot of digging on this. The USN offered the the RAN Philippine Sea (CV-47). She was an unmodified Essex class that had been decommissioned in 1958 after 12.5 years of service. She had seen no service in WWII (in fact she was only commissioned in 1946), but did deploy to Korea 3 times as an Attack Carrier. After Korea, and with the first SCB-27 ships coming online, she was downgraded to an antisubmarine carrier. The offer to Australia was to modernize her to SCB-125A standard with several key changes, the first being a steel flight deck instead of aluminum clad wood. The rest involved fitting British radios, radars and other equipment as needed to give her greater interoperability with the RAN fleet. (IIRC, there was also a proposal to fit her to American standards as the RAN was considering converting, and ultimately did, to mainly American supplied equipment). Had Australia taken up the US on their offer in 1960, she could have been refitted and in service by 1963 (the average SCB-27/125 overhaul took between 26 and 28 months). As for the air group, Australia wanted Phantoms. They were not interested in the Crusader as they very concerned by Indonesia's purchase of TU-16 bombers and antiship missiles. They wanted an effective counter to that threat. And that means Phantom. However, there were concerns about launching fully loaded Phantoms from an Essex in hot and humid weather, the default weather in the part of the world that the RAN planned to operate in. So the USN studied it and offered a baseline F4H-1 (F-4B) modified with a double extended nose wheel, slats and drooping ailerons (essentially an F-4K minus the Spey and blown flaps). That configuration was expected to reduce WOD speed by approximately 17 knots, allowing a C11-1 cat to launch a fully loaded Phantom at 90° temperatures in humid air. In the end, the proposal was turned down for several reasons. Surprisingly, cost to modify her wasn't the main one. It was the cost to man her. Between ship's crew and the air group, an Essex needed some 3,000 sailors. That was over twice as many as Melbourne. The RAN decided they could not realistically afford to man her. The second, and probably bigger reason, is that Indonesia became much less of a threat in 67 shortly after the RAN steered looking at it again. Indonesia went from Soviet to Western leaning after a coup. That reduced the need for a strike carrier greatly. There was also a squabble with the RAAF about whether an attack carrier was really needed when they were buying F-111s that could strike Indonesia from home soil. In the end, Australia had only a small window from 60 to about 62 when an Essex class could have been feasibly purchased. Thanks for the digging ssgtc, i do hoop you did not ended up down under. But if you say that the window for a Essex into service with the RAN was 1960 to 1962 then HMAS Melbourne (R21) would only serve for 10 years with the RAN before being replaced by a Essex, but by 1981 even a Essex would become somewhat old to operate i would presume. |
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Aug 22, 2020 19:37:47 GMT
Yes, the RAN realized very soon after commissioning Melbourne just how limited she actually was as a strike carrier. Melbourne had only entered service with the RAN in 1955. Five years later, they already wanted to replace her. Had they bought an Essex, Melbourne would have been decommissioned after only 8 years in service. Given how little service Philippine Sea had seen prior to this, Australia could have reasonably gotten 18-20 years out of her. Probably decommissioning her sometime between 1980 and 1983. Possibly with a replacement ordered from either the US or the UK (an Invincible seems likely or possibly several smaller navies, like the RAN, RM, RN and FN, work together to buy a class of 40-50,000 ton fleet carriers.
ETA: To me, I think the studies into buying an Essex class in 1960 were a case of buyer's remorse on the part of the RAN. That, in hindsight, they realized that they should have purchased an Essex to begin with instead a British light fleet. Nothing to back that up, just kind of a gut feeling that I have about it
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 22, 2020 19:43:02 GMT
Yes, the RAN realized very soon after commissioning Melbourne just how limited she actually was as a strike carrier. Melbourne had only entered service with the RAN in 1955. Five years later, they already wanted to replace her. Had they bought an Essex, Melbourne would have been decommissioned after only 8 years in service. Given how little service Philippine Sea had seen prior to this, Australia could have reasonably gotten 18-20 years out of her. Probably decommissioning her sometime between 1980 and 1983. Possibly with a replacement ordered from either the US or the UK (an Invincible seems likely or possibly several smaller navies, like the RAN, RM, RN and FN, work together to buy a class of 40-50,000 ton fleet carriers. Having operated a Essex for lets say 20 years would make a modified American Iwo Jima-class amphibious assault ship a good candidate to repalce here, as the RAN was already operating 3 Perth-class destroyers (modified Charles F. Adams-class guided missile destroyers) and about to enter into service the first of 6 Adelaide-class frigate (class based on the United States Navy's Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates, but modified for Australian requirements) having a Iwo Jima-class would not feel odd. |
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Aug 22, 2020 20:08:24 GMT
Actually, an Iwo Jima would make a terrible replacement. They aren't carriers. They can only do 20-22 knots verses the 31 of an Essex. An Essex, even with Phantoms, will have an air wing of 60 aircraft. An Iwo can fit 20. Maybe. And they can't fit any AEW&C, no tankers and no electronic attack aircraft. They lack the hanger space, bunkerage, parts stowage and magazine spaces to conduct sustained carrier operations. In short, they are an amphibious warfare ship, not a carrier.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Aug 22, 2020 20:17:22 GMT
Actually, an Iwo Jima would make a terrible replacement. They aren't carriers. They can only do 20-22 knots verses the 31 of an Essex. An Essex, even with Phantoms, will have an air wing of 60 aircraft. An Iwo can fit 20. Maybe. And they can't fit any AEW&C, no tankers and no electronic attack aircraft. They lack the hanger space, bunkerage, parts stowage and magazine spaces to conduct sustained carrier operations. In short, they are an amphibious warfare ship, not a carrier. Also i would presume that that only a Harrier jet like this could operate from a Iwo Jima class in service with the RAN.  |
|
ssgtc
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 496
Likes: 740
|
Post by ssgtc on Aug 22, 2020 20:33:38 GMT
Actually, an Iwo Jima would make a terrible replacement. They aren't carriers. They can only do 20-22 knots verses the 31 of an Essex. An Essex, even with Phantoms, will have an air wing of 60 aircraft. An Iwo can fit 20. Maybe. And they can't fit any AEW&C, no tankers and no electronic attack aircraft. They lack the hanger space, bunkerage, parts stowage and magazine spaces to conduct sustained carrier operations. In short, they are an amphibious warfare ship, not a carrier. Also i would presume that that only a Harrier jet like this could operate from a Iwo Jima class in service with the RAN. Except you lose so much other capability, that going from a full up angled deck fleet carrier to a glorified assault ship, that it just doesn't make sense. Look at the history of the Harrier. With the exception of the United States, the only countries to operate Harriers at sea did so as a means of getting BACK into naval aviation. No one went from CATOBAR to STOVL in one shot. Even the UK was without fixed wing naval aviation for a few years between decommissioning Ark Royal and commissioning Invincible. The one exception, the USN, never got out of CATOBAR, just added STOVL to it's amphibs so the Marines had some organic air support. And again, you lose 2/3s of your air wing going from an Essex to an Iwo Jima. You literally need three of them to even get close to the striking power of the one carrier you lost. And in practical terms, you probably need 5 or 6, since the Essex air wing is vastly more capable than one built on Harrier. And it's not even the aircraft. It's the ship itself. She simply does not have the space to do what you want. The Iwo Jima class are under 600' in length and only 18,000 tons at full load. An Essex is almost 900' in length (888') and some 47,000 tons full load. That's more than twice the size of an Iwo Jima. So no, an Iwo Jima is not a good replacement for an Essex Class. In fact, it's downright terrible as one. |
|
