lordroel
Administrator
Posts: 67,964 
Likes: 49,365
|
Post by lordroel on Apr 8, 2022 16:35:16 GMT
Would Australia be allowed to buy the Convair B-58 Hustler. |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 8, 2022 16:51:04 GMT
It wasn’t on our list at all.
|
|
1bigrich
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 478
Likes: 611
|
Post by 1bigrich on Apr 8, 2022 18:23:01 GMT
Would Australia be allowed to buy the Convair B-58 Hustler. Historically, the only time a US strategic bomber went to an ally was when B-29s went to the RAF as Washingtons. I don't recall the story exactly, but I think there was a rumor of a B-58 loaned to or trialed by the RAAF. I don't know that the plane ever left US soil, nor that it was repainted like the model shows, or even with Australian roundels. The model depicted is of course a fantasy, but a fun one nonetheless. Perhaps as high altitude bomber for the RAAF in the 60s, in the 70s they get an upgrade with the terrain following radar from the F-111....  Regards, |
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Apr 9, 2022 1:21:48 GMT
I’d go for damage to Karel Doorman, as a sinking and large casualty event has the capacity to escalate; escalation at this time means The Bomb. Loaning Sydney to the Dutch is a go; similarly, getting either of the RN Centaurs is doable. Long term, the Dutch could get Leviathan finished for them with the Yanks footing the bill. This all sets up an RAN Essex, but I’d caution against pumping up the Indonesians into too much of a threat. Already, without adding SSMs near Singers, you’re going to see more nuclear armed RAF bombers at Singapore plus a full carrier presence. The situation could have the Aussies being the southern part of a pincer against Djakarta. The elephant in the room is that with that large a threat, we’d go nuclear. The carriers would be less of the frontline weapon then in favour of whatever bomber we get; you’d get a metric ton of brownie points if you made that the TSR-2.  I hadn't even considered that HMS Leviathan could be completed and, I really wonder how she would be modified given the timeframe? This conversation here provides a couple of left field ideas, otherwise the Dutch could always purchase one of the Centaur class slated for retirement. Knowing how thorough the Dutch tend to be with upgrades, the purchased Centaur class might get an upgrade similar to Hermes. A southern pincer could work as the designated role for an Aussie carrier with the primary offensive coming from a carrier or two based in the South China Sea & the RAF bombers. Happy for any ideas or suggestions in that regard to a potential carrier's role, since that helps with the narrative. While an upgraded strike capability for the RAAF leading to either the BAC TSR 2 or the B - 58 would be fun. Particularly as with the former having another Air Force purchase the type should be enough IMHO to push it over the line and into production. The RAAF would also presumably continue operating upgraded Bloodhound surface to air missile sites as well. |
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Apr 9, 2022 1:41:41 GMT
Sounds reasonable. Fundamentally agree with Simon. Sydney should not be a problem; perhaps the Dutch take her while Doorman is being repaired and then keep her as a second carrier. I think the A-4 makes sense, armed with Sidewinders. A couple alternatives I could see would be the F9F, as you suggest, and instead of the Fj-2, the FJ-4b, the fighter bomber version of the Fury. It wasn't retired until the late 60s. As for the problem, the Indonesians could use Osa fast attack missile boats to control the sea lanes around their Islands, including the Straits of Malacca and routes on which shipping will pass to Australia. My thoughts, I just looked at the steam catapults carried by the Centaur class and, the FJ - 4B would be able to be launch & recover from the soon to be relabeled HM AS Albion. So that provides a pretty solid alternative for a fast jet capability & I've always had a soft spot for the type. Otherwise the A - 4 Skyhawk could also be directly purchased from the American production line in 1960 depending upon the build rate. Either way I might flip a coin and focus on the adventures of HMAS Albion, while her bigger more capable Essex class sister starts sea trials & work ups. Part of me wonders whether the RAN would keep Albion and convert her to a commando carrier once HMAS Australia enters service? The advantage from that decision is that you end up with a slightly bigger pool of Centaur class carriers still in service reducing operational costs. The other butterfly is whether QE II will get built ITTL or the Brits opt for two modified Essex class carriers themselves? Much to think about... |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 9, 2022 2:45:41 GMT
www.destinationsjourney.com/historical-military-photographs/royal-navy-aircraft-carrier-hms-leviathan-r97/Leviathan looks fairly advanced here and there wouldn't have been a significant issue until her boilers came out. The timeline that is relevant is Vikrant in terms of the maximal modifications. The northern pincer would be an RN carrier at Singers, likely Ark Royal or Eagle. With a bigger issue in the Far East, there might be scope for CVA-01 to be saved; combining that with TSR-2 would be two out of three legs of the British neverwere holy trinity, the last being the P.1154. If you can go the further step and save Vanguard, then you deserve to be showered in gold, frankincense and praise. Absolutely no way the British go for an Essex. If they are in the carrier business, then they've got to be in it properly, not with another WW2 veteran replacing larger ships.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Apr 9, 2022 3:18:51 GMT
Goodness me she was damn close to being completed then, probably just a few remaining fit outs & sea trials to be completed.
I think P 1154 is a bridge too far even for me, so I think that still gets the chop while the TSR 2 scrapes through. I'm also cancelling Victorious rebuild too, along with HMS Blake & Tiger's conversion. Which will free up money, and more importantly manpower to crew the larger QE IIs. Open to any idea as to how Vanguard could be saved, but I think that the POD is just a fraction too late for that to occur. Likewise no wasted money on the F 111 program too, so the British treasury is in far better shape.
Now if the V Bomber force can also be rationalised down to a single type either augmented or replaced by the TSR 2, than we are cooking with gas.
Maybe the RAN pushes to buy a 3rd QE 2 carrier, except they get the second ship in the build order.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 9, 2022 5:03:16 GMT
Regarding Vanguard, have Indonesia get an extra Sverdlov or two. Then rationalise keeping the battleship in reserve until appropriate anti-ship aircraft are available. That gets through the next few years. From there, the next step requires a USN deployment of New Jersey to Vietnam, along with cruisers. Running concurrently to that, Britain gets into Vietnam to pay back US support for deployment of a task force to Singapore.
The amount of money it costs to keep her in reserve is darn small, so there is no appreciable saving. Take the funds wasted on cancelling aircraft and ship programmes and it pays the bill.
A rationalisation down to one of the latter Phase Vulcan designs plus TSR-2 would be the best case.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Apr 9, 2022 6:00:26 GMT
There we go QE 2 salvaged, BAC TSR 2 entering service and Vanguard remaining in service. No Phantom modifications to Ark or Eagle, & no need to add the Spey to the F 4 reducing acquisition costs further.
Let's make the Chieftain have a better transmission at the start & the Lightning gets fully developed.
This sounds like a better 60s tbh.
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 9, 2022 9:23:16 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 10, 2022 15:57:58 GMT
Moving back to the original idea, I think that we need to work out what was the RAN budget for the relevant years and how much the carrier, air group and extras will cost. I’m a fan of breaking things down like that, as it can show the real nitty gritty of the issues.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Apr 10, 2022 23:15:23 GMT
In 1960 the Australian defence budget was 0.46 Billion (USD) representing 2.37 % of GDP, which is our POD. Here's a cost comparison from the RAN study into replacing HMAS Melbourne in the early 1960s, that shows the acquisition costs and capabilities of Melbourne vs CVA 01 vs a modified Essex class carrier.  |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 11, 2022 1:55:10 GMT
Wonderful. On the face of it, Oriskany/Essex wins out as it is 14 million cheaper and available 4 years earlier. The larger air group is slightly more ephemeral, as the size of the FAA ones were driven by cost rather than absolute physical limits on the CVA-01s. Dropping the Sea Dart would save a bit.
The real kicker for me, though, is the total cost as compared to the service life. An Essex in 1968 has perhaps 15 years to go at tops, whereas a brand new carrier has double that.
It also bemuses me somewhat to see three 'generations' of ideas regarding ship armament in one diagram.
|
|
|
|
Post by La Rouge Beret on Apr 11, 2022 22:32:30 GMT
I think this also raises an interesting dilemma - should the RAN go for a platform that will be in service earlier & at lower cost. However, the trade off is that it will have a shorter operating life? Alternatively, do they opt for a new build carrier that will not be available until the following decade? Choosing the lower cost option can provide an illusory benefit in these scenarios given that once you depreciate the asset over a shorter operating life, things either work out square or they have a higher cost due to the greater amount of maintenance required for an ageing platform. Either way they will need a bridging option given the threat posed by the Indonesian military so that originally lead me to think of HMS Albion, but if the Admiralty is smarter ITTL they should offer Hermes to the RAN under the condition that the RAN commit to the new carrier build. Edit: I wonder if this might lead to the RN & RAN FAA operating F - 14s - pics for inspiration.   |
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Apr 12, 2022 7:27:43 GMT
I’d tend to agree with the Hermes option, as it allows for a decent (relatively) immediate service ship with a longer term solution locked in down the line. Oriskany or a similar Essex gives a bit more immediately, but then suffers from the same drop off in service life as Hermes whilst not having room for long term aircraft growth even if it is pushed further.
To operate a Phantom air group (or even Tomcats down the line), a large carrier is needed. As you say, the cheaper Essex has an illusory cost advantage that only works if we dwell in the moment. An aircraft carrier, like a puppy, is not just for Christmas.
|
|
