|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Nov 20, 2020 4:19:25 GMT
Which means an expanded Hornet buy, thus helping the RAAF maintain their own fleet and opening up potential exchanges with both the RAAF, USN, & USMC Hornet communities. If we add an AEW C platform as well then we have a very capable & affordable carrier.
Apart from that I'm looking at buying a F - 4S Phantom kit to model in RAN FAA colours for ssgtc's TL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,832 
Likes: 13,222
|
Post by stevep on Nov 20, 2020 11:12:07 GMT
Our facilities could have handled a ship the size of the Essex class, our issue would have focused upon manning and ensuring that the single ship does not consume the majority of the Navy's budget. In this scenario the Army would have far fewer regular members acting as a 'skeleton' for the war time only volunteers to fill out the shadow formations of the 3rd AIF. Which involves the CMF winning the battle viz a vis the Regular Army in the 50s. This should stretch the overall budget enough, along with a greater threat to our Near North, to justify high defence spending during the Cold War. The graving dock at Garden Island pre - dates the fall of Singapore and there are also huge fuel bunkers there as well.
Interesting thanks. I knew that in WWI Australia couldn't handle anything larger than one of the initial I class BCs and since money was short after the war and a lot of effort was put into the base at Singapore I didn't think anything that large had been done in Oz until the loss of Singapore caused a problem but obviously wrong.
|
|
lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Nov 20, 2020 16:28:16 GMT
If we add an AEW C platform as well then we have a very capable & affordable carrier. You mean something like the E-2 hawkey. |
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Nov 20, 2020 22:15:26 GMT
Yup just an earlier version and considering the smaller size of the platform; it would narrow it down IMHO to two options. The AEW 3 Gannett or the E - 1 Tracer.   |
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Feb 8, 2022 9:54:15 GMT
This is for my own TL, but does anyone know how long a modified Essex could stay on station during a Vietnam era cruise?
Particularly, if she was operating F - 4 Phantoms ostensibly in an ASW carrier role?
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 8, 2022 13:50:29 GMT
This is for my own TL, but does anyone know how long a modified Essex could stay on station during a Vietnam era cruise? Particularly, if she was operating F - 4 Phantoms ostensibly in an ASW carrier role? Try this: www.wittwer.nl/?p=242Deployments could be as short as three months or as long as seven months. Bear in mind though the carriers relying on underway replenishment. On Yankee Station, carriers did shifts 12 hours on, 12 hours off, usually in groups on three. One carrier covered midnight to noon, another carrier covered noon to midnight and the third carrier operated during daylight. At times, there were as many as six carriers though, especially during Linebacker II. Hope this helps.... Regards, |
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Feb 8, 2022 23:47:25 GMT
This is for my own TL, but does anyone know how long a modified Essex could stay on station during a Vietnam era cruise? Particularly, if she was operating F - 4 Phantoms ostensibly in an ASW carrier role? Try this: www.wittwer.nl/?p=242Deployments could be as short as three months or as long as seven months. Bear in mind though the carriers relying on underway replenishment. On Yankee Station, carriers did shifts 12 hours on, 12 hours off, usually in groups on three. One carrier covered midnight to noon, another carrier covered noon to midnight and the third carrier operated during daylight. At times, there were as many as six carriers though, especially during Linebacker II. Hope this helps.... Regards, That helps a great deal and if the RAN deployed an Essex class carrier to Yankee Station. Would it be likely that the USN would pair them with another Essex or utilise them in concert with two larger carriers? |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 9, 2022 9:54:42 GMT
The RAN would need some sort of substantive budget boost to afford a full sized carrier, it’s air wing, extra escort ships and ordinary operational budget, even before the cost of operating off Vietnam.
My gut feeling is that this would not be forthcoming, unless the operation of a second hand carrier has a significant butterfly effect on Australian political history in the 1970s. Pushing the service life of an Essex past 1985 would be very, very difficult, so the previous mention of RAN Hornets is just a bit ambitious. It is too much ship too late for the RAN; get one in 1960-62, then it can limp through to 1980.
I’m further not really sure on the Phantom air wing being affordable beyond the 1960s or indeed beyond the point where Indonesia flips. The window for their utility is very, very slim. Ops against Indonesia are better catered for by land based planes in the NT and Malaysia. The ultimate counter to them is nuclear deterrence with the F-111s.
What is the purpose of an RAN carrier? Is it to defend and protect Australian interests, or serve as an adjunct to US forces and interests? If the latter, then it is easier fulfilled by an American ship.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 9, 2022 13:35:23 GMT
That helps a great deal and if the RAN deployed an Essex class carrier to Yankee Station. Would it be likely that the USN would pair them with another Essex or utilise them in concert with two larger carriers? The teams on Yankee Station were usually mixed, with the bigger newer carriers and Essex-class working together, but it could be either way, two of the older carriers with a newer one or one older carrier and two newer ones. As an aside, a couple anecdotes I recall: Coral Sea had the record for fastest underway replenishment. She was off Vietnam, and one of the Sacramento Class AOE was refueling her. The Sacramentos had half of an Iowa power plants (taken from Kentucky and Illinios when they were scrapped) and could make 24 knots. Coral Sea was launching a strike at the time, so they were doing 24 knots to provide wind over the deck while still fueling. Intrepid was operating with one of the Forrstal class carriers in close proximity when they were launching a strike against Vietnam, and the Intrepid was matching the launches of the bigger carrier with only her two catapults (the bigger, newer carriers all had/have four catapults). A note on AEW: The early versions on the E-2 Hawkeye were made with radar domes that could retract toward the fuselage to fit in the hangar decks of the modified Essex-class carriers. This was dispensed with in the later models as the Essex class passed out of service, but if the RAN had Essex, there would be another option for AEW. Carrier trials of the E-2A were carried out aboard Oriskany, BTW. Regards, |
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Feb 9, 2022 23:55:31 GMT
The RAN would need some sort of substantive budget boost to afford a full sized carrier, it’s air wing, extra escort ships and ordinary operational budget, even before the cost of operating off Vietnam. My gut feeling is that this would not be forthcoming, unless the operation of a second hand carrier has a significant butterfly effect on Australian political history in the 1970s. Pushing the service life of an Essex past 1985 would be very, very difficult, so the previous mention of RAN Hornets is just a bit ambitious. It is too much ship too late for the RAN; get one in 1960-62, then it can limp through to 1980. I’m further not really sure on the Phantom air wing being affordable beyond the 1960s or indeed beyond the point where Indonesia flips. The window for their utility is very, very slim. Ops against Indonesia are better catered for by land based planes in the NT and Malaysia. The ultimate counter to them is nuclear deterrence with the F-111s. What is the purpose of an RAN carrier? Is it to defend and protect Australian interests, or serve as an adjunct to US forces and interests? If the latter, then it is easier fulfilled by an American ship. You raise an interesting point and it was originally the same preconception that thought the Essex class was a non starter for ADF service. Namely, that the budget was inadequate & so due to my networks I had the opportunity to talk with a few Senior Naval Officers either from the period or whom had written extensively about the period. Their universal response was that there was sufficient money to be spent and the crewing issues could have been addressed. While there is always going to be an element of talking your book, the men involved are fairly knowledgeable so I trust their opinions. However, for that to occur you need a couple of events to go your way and the first is that the Indonesian threat must remain extant & like ssgtc's TL mine features a more Communist aligned Indonesia. If you are wondering him & I already spoke about it and he is comfortable that our two TL's are sufficiently different to be unique. The original Naval papers talk about using the Essex class as an ASW carrier & that is how I would also see it. Namely to protect the fleet with organic fixed wing air cover (both MPA & fast jet), provide c & c facilities for the fleet & protect Australian interests. Some postulated that we could use a mixed air group of F 8s & A 4s, but I think we would be hard pressed for the RAN FAA to operate two fast jets at the one time. Given this I think the F - 4 Phantom squadron would also gain experience with air to ground operations too. As you identified and a few others the fly in the ointment is likely to be the go / no go decision WRT replacing the carrier starting in the late 70s. One idea I considered was that the USN CVV project goes ahead & they construct a couple of carriers. The USN hated the concept so I think they would if Reagan isn't butterflied away be willing to transfer them to allied Naval powers (either Australia or the UK). But again that represents threading the eye of a needle with a camel twice! I'm also using this as an excuse to buy a few more model aircraft kits! |
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Feb 9, 2022 23:56:51 GMT
That helps a great deal and if the RAN deployed an Essex class carrier to Yankee Station. Would it be likely that the USN would pair them with another Essex or utilise them in concert with two larger carriers? The teams on Yankee Station were usually mixed, with the bigger newer carriers and Essex-class working together, but it could be either way, two of the older carriers with a newer one or one older carrier and two newer ones. As an aside, a couple anecdotes I recall: Coral Sea had the record for fastest underway replenishment. She was off Vietnam, and one of the Sacramento Class AOE was refueling her. The Sacramentos had half of an Iowa power plants (taken from Kentucky and Illinios when they were scrapped) and could make 24 knots. Coral Sea was launching a strike at the time, so they were doing 24 knots to provide wind over the deck while still fueling. Intrepid was operating with one of the Forrstal class carriers in close proximity when they were launching a strike against Vietnam, and the Intrepid was matching the launches of the bigger carrier with only her two catapults (the bigger, newer carriers all had/have four catapults). A note on AEW: The early versions on the E-2 Hawkeye were made with radar domes that could retract toward the fuselage to fit in the hangar decks of the modified Essex-class carriers. This was dispensed with in the later models as the Essex class passed out of service, but if the RAN had Essex, there would be another option for AEW. Carrier trials of the E-2A were carried out aboard Oriskany, BTW. Regards, Smashing! This is going in my notes to add some colour to a few chapters. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 10, 2022 6:01:51 GMT
The RAN would need some sort of substantive budget boost to afford a full sized carrier, it’s air wing, extra escort ships and ordinary operational budget, even before the cost of operating off Vietnam. My gut feeling is that this would not be forthcoming, unless the operation of a second hand carrier has a significant butterfly effect on Australian political history in the 1970s. Pushing the service life of an Essex past 1985 would be very, very difficult, so the previous mention of RAN Hornets is just a bit ambitious. It is too much ship too late for the RAN; get one in 1960-62, then it can limp through to 1980. I’m further not really sure on the Phantom air wing being affordable beyond the 1960s or indeed beyond the point where Indonesia flips. The window for their utility is very, very slim. Ops against Indonesia are better catered for by land based planes in the NT and Malaysia. The ultimate counter to them is nuclear deterrence with the F-111s. What is the purpose of an RAN carrier? Is it to defend and protect Australian interests, or serve as an adjunct to US forces and interests? If the latter, then it is easier fulfilled by an American ship. You raise an interesting point and it was originally the same preconception that thought the Essex class was a non starter for ADF service. Namely, that the budget was inadequate & so due to my networks I had the opportunity to talk with a few Senior Naval Officers either from the period or whom had written extensively about the period. Their universal response was that there was sufficient money to be spent and the crewing issues could have been addressed. While there is always going to be an element of talking your book, the men involved are fairly knowledgeable so I trust their opinions. However, for that to occur you need a couple of events to go your way and the first is that the Indonesian threat must remain extant & like ssgtc's TL mine features a more Communist aligned Indonesia. If you are wondering him & I already spoke about it and he is comfortable that our two TL's are sufficiently different to be unique. The original Naval papers talk about using the Essex class as an ASW carrier & that is how I would also see it. Namely to protect the fleet with organic fixed wing air cover (both MPA & fast jet), provide c & c facilities for the fleet & protect Australian interests. Some postulated that we could use a mixed air group of F 8s & A 4s, but I think we would be hard pressed for the RAN FAA to operate two fast jets at the one time. Given this I think the F - 4 Phantom squadron would also gain experience with air to ground operations too. As you identified and a few others the fly in the ointment is likely to be the go / no go decision WRT replacing the carrier starting in the late 70s. One idea I considered was that the USN CVV project goes ahead & they construct a couple of carriers. The USN hated the concept so I think they would if Reagan isn't butterflied away be willing to transfer them to allied Naval powers (either Australia or the UK). But again that represents threading the eye of a needle with a camel twice! I'm also using this as an excuse to buy a few more model aircraft kits! I think that the money was there in the early 60s, but the bottom drops out of the Defence budget after that. Australia (% of GDP) 1966 - 3.7 1967 - 4.7 1968 - 4.9 1969 - 4.8 1970 - 4.0 1971 - 3.6 1972 - 2.9 1973 - 3.6 1974 - 3.3 1975 - 3.2 1976 - 3.2 1977 - missing 1978 - 2.9 1979 - 2.7 1980 - 2.8 1981 - 3.0 1982 - 3.0 1983 - 3.1 1984 - 3.2 1985 - 3.2 1986 - 2.8 1987 - 3.0 1988 - 2.7 1989 - 2.7 1990 - 2.7 I don’t distrust the opinion of any professional blokes from the Puss, but the numbers don’t line up after the initial 1960s rise in numbers. Melbourne had a crew of 1350 compared to 2500 for an Essex. I don’t have access to my 1960s and 70s Janes anymore, nor one of my posts from another site on ADF personnel numbers through the 70s, but I’m just a bit iffy on the margins. The associated issue is how the RAN Essex is going to survive Gough. The next part is trying to pass off Phantoms as part of an ASW carrier air wing. It has never been done elsewhere for good reason. The RN didn’t go down that path and are the only non US navy to operate the Phantom, as well as being over twice the manpower of the RAN and with a bigger budget. I would suggest that, whilst not impossible, there were reasons it was not done. I think you can wangle an Essex simply enough as a big CVS, but not with the premier naval fighter in the Free World at that point. There aren’t the drivers for a full RN strike carrier and that is exactly what one with F-4s turns out to be. If Australia needs strike aircraft to counter Indonesia, shore based aircraft give much more bang for buck. |
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Feb 10, 2022 23:13:00 GMT
I think that the money was there in the early 60s, but the bottom drops out of the Defence budget after that. Australia (% of GDP) 1966 - 3.7 1967 - 4.7 1968 - 4.9 1969 - 4.8 1970 - 4.0 1971 - 3.6 1972 - 2.9 1973 - 3.6 1974 - 3.3 1975 - 3.2 1976 - 3.2 1977 - missing 1978 - 2.9 1979 - 2.7 1980 - 2.8 1981 - 3.0 1982 - 3.0 1983 - 3.1 1984 - 3.2 1985 - 3.2 1986 - 2.8 1987 - 3.0 1988 - 2.7 1989 - 2.7 1990 - 2.7 I don’t distrust the opinion of any professional blokes from the Puss, but the numbers don’t line up after the initial 1960s rise in numbers. Melbourne had a crew of 1350 compared to 2500 for an Essex. I don’t have access to my 1960s and 70s Janes anymore, nor one of my posts from another site on ADF personnel numbers through the 70s, but I’m just a bit iffy on the margins. The associated issue is how the RAN Essex is going to survive Gough. The next part is trying to pass off Phantoms as part of an ASW carrier air wing. It has never been done elsewhere for good reason. The RN didn’t go down that path and are the only non US navy to operate the Phantom, as well as being over twice the manpower of the RAN and with a bigger budget. I would suggest that, whilst not impossible, there were reasons it was not done. I think you can wangle an Essex simply enough as a big CVS, but not with the premier naval fighter in the Free World at that point. There aren’t the drivers for a full RN strike carrier and that is exactly what one with F-4s turns out to be. If Australia needs strike aircraft to counter Indonesia, shore based aircraft give much more bang for buck. Hopefully you are enjoying this conversation as much as I am, since I really like applying rigour to my assumptions within the TL. To give some more context as to the change of strategic environment for Australia ITTL, we have Operation Trikora occurring namely the Tu 16 strike against the Dutch carrier. This results in the complete loss of the carrier and damage to one of her escorts. A Soviet naval base is established at Surabaya, which hosts a submarine squadron and also a few visiting Pacific Fleet surface ships. I haven't worked out if I want Netherlands New Guinea to be handed over to Indonesia ITTL or whether the Dutch offer to fold it into Australian controlled PNG. While things cool down after this, the alarm bells ring in Russell Offices and in Cabinet. All in all Australia faces a more hostile strategic environment than OTL throughout the 60s into the 80s and this accordingly changes force structure & funding. I am also tempted to have Arthur Calwell win the 1963 election purely for the butterflies, but that I think that would also butterfly away Gough or could do at least. Consequently, I have the RAAF arguing for and purchasing F - 4 Phantom Cs in order to establish long range air superiority & to be able to escort the ordered F - 111s against Jakarta. The Navy in taking up the purchase of the Essex class carrier could IMHO argue that they can tack onto the RAAF purchase through also acquiring F - 4 Bs providing commonality of spares, some training etc. It's a 50 / 50 proposition but a joint fleet acquisition is the type of argument that could make it pass the bean counters. Apart from that operating Phantoms means that the Essex class carrier has fewer flight operations during the day given the plane's greater endurance and ability to provide a larger protective screen around the fleet. Thus leading to greater numbers of ASW aircraft operated by the carrier. The alternative that I've closely considered is that if the RAN & the Naval Board want to use it as a strike carrier, then we would be conducting RAS every 3 to 4 days given the amount of ordinance & fuel the F 4 consumes. If you change the air group to F - 8 Crusaders & A - 4 Skyhawks than that works, unless we are able to get the Twosader into production. F - 8 Crusader picture for fun.  |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Feb 11, 2022 5:19:45 GMT
All very good. I like getting the chance to talk about Australian defence history, as we are a small group on an American-centric Internet.
If the Soviets stay in Indonesia, then I don’t think Gorton pulls the plug on the Australian Bomb in addition to the exact circumstances for Whitlam to bloviate his way into the Labor leadership, let alone The Lodge, disappearing into mist.
We would see the whole defence posture alter to counter that threat; I look at the idea of a Red Indonesia in my own Dark Earth works and all the sources and drivers point towards not just the alarm bells ringing in Canberra, but a new definition of Australia’s worst case strategic situation being made. Historically post 1965, we’ve feared the collapse of Indonesia; this is a new worst that makes that pale into comparison: we are now a frontline state.
The GDP percentages I cited above? Double them.
The F-111 order? Double it.
Conscription? Suddenly no longer a problem.
With the Soviets in place, the British are going to be leaned on to stay in Singers, the Yanks are going to go troppo and we are going to be seriously looking at what we’ve never faced in peacetime - an enemy at the gates.
Following through the consequences of Red Indonesia leads to a changed Australia. With that, you can engineer your Essexes (yes, the plural is deliberate) very easily.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Feb 11, 2022 12:04:44 GMT
Hopefully you are enjoying this conversation as much as I am, since I really like applying rigour to my assumptions within the TL. To give some more context as to the change of strategic environment for Australia ITTL, we have Operation Trikora occurring namely the Tu 16 strike against the Dutch carrier. This results in the complete loss of the carrier and damage to one of her escorts. A Soviet naval base is established at Surabaya, which hosts a submarine squadron and also a few visiting Pacific Fleet surface ships. I haven't worked out if I want Netherlands New Guinea to be handed over to Indonesia ITTL or whether the Dutch offer to fold it into Australian controlled PNG. While things cool down after this, the alarm bells ring in Russell Offices and in Cabinet. All in all Australia faces a more hostile strategic environment than OTL throughout the 60s into the 80s and this accordingly changes force structure & funding. I am also tempted to have Arthur Calwell win the 1963 election purely for the butterflies, but that I think that would also butterfly away Gough or could do at least. Consequently, I have the RAAF arguing for and purchasing F - 4 Phantom Cs in order to establish long range air superiority & to be able to escort the ordered F - 111s against Jakarta. The Navy in taking up the purchase of the Essex class carrier could IMHO argue that they can tack onto the RAAF purchase through also acquiring F - 4 Bs providing commonality of spares, some training etc. It's a 50 / 50 proposition but a joint fleet acquisition is the type of argument that could make it pass the bean counters. Apart from that operating Phantoms means that the Essex class carrier has fewer flight operations during the day given the plane's greater endurance and ability to provide a larger protective screen around the fleet. Thus leading to greater numbers of ASW aircraft operated by the carrier. The alternative that I've closely considered is that if the RAN & the Naval Board want to use it as a strike carrier, then we would be conducting RAS every 3 to 4 days given the amount of ordinance & fuel the F 4 consumes. If you change the air group to F - 8 Crusaders & A - 4 Skyhawks than that works, unless we are able to get the Twosader into production. Your F-4 argument is reasonable to me. Is the alternative of the F-8 with the A-4 for numbers? Would a group of F-8s and A-7s be more effective? Very nicely done. My compliments to the modeler. Thanks for sharing! Regards, |
|
