As an aside, had Australia bought Hermes in 1968 how would the RN have faired in the South Atlantic in 1982 without her? Could Ark Royal have been retained longer to cover the gap?
I could see your starting point being a RAN purchase of 2 Hermes class carriers in the mid-1920's as part of the 2 ocean navy concept, with the option to build a 3rd (not taken up due to the Depression) & the construction of dry-dock & repair facilities in Port Adelaide, chosen because it is roughly midway between Sydney & Perth, & is relatively stratigically secure from both directions (not completed due to the Depression).
In the late-1930's construction of the dry-dock & repair facilities is completed, & construction begins on a more modern carrier of either Australian design (based on experience with the Hermes class ships) or of a simplified Illustrious class.
Just an idea. ;)
:)
A modified Ark Royal with a single instead of double hanger?
Guy
I very much enjoyed your topic and post thanks Volkodav
M.A.D
I very much enjoyed your topic and post thanks Volkodav
M.A.D
Your welcome.
An extra fact I was not aware of when I wrote this post, Air Vice Marshal Stanley James Goble, a WWI Australian born RNAS fighter ace, was the RAN representative on the conference that established the AAF (RAAF) and alternated as Chief with Williams throughout the 20s and 30s, recommended that Australia form a separate Fleet Air Arm on multiple occasions (successfully opposed by Williams).
An extra fact I was not aware of when I wrote this post, Air Vice Marshal Stanley James Goble, a WWI Australian born RNAS fighter ace, was the RAN representative on the conference that established the AAF (RAAF) and alternated as Chief with Williams throughout the 20s and 30s, recommended that Australia form a separate Fleet Air Arm on multiple occasions (successfully opposed by Williams).
Speaking of RAN Essex class, here is part of the Navy Report into it. I have the full report too if anyone wants it.
Very interesting read, did some further checking when I saw how biased and wrong the assistant Secretary of the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet, one John Enfield AO, was. Turns out he was an engineer and cut his teeth on a UK guided missile project in the 50s, including traveling back to Australia to test said missile at Woomera, i.e. likely to have been the Sea Slug. He joined the public service in 1962 and became a defence acquisition expert, spent some time in treasury, then PM&C, some less important posts (after pissing off the Silver Bodgey) before dying at the age of 57 in 1992. So one of the key personalities in the RAN getting out of the carrier business was a 47 year old public servant who cherrypicked reports to side with the minority view of the Chief of Air Staff, that the Harrier / Sea Harrier sucked and had no future, helicopters flying from FFGs were more flexible and capable than larger more capable helicopters flying from a carrier, dunking sonar would soon be obsolete, and the money was better spent on replacing the P-3B with extra P-3Cs, as the Orion was more flexible and capable than a carrier.Speaking of RAN Essex class, here is part of the Navy Report into it. I have the full report too if anyone wants it.
If anyone wants to read this you can here (https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au) by searching for "RAN proposal for a replacement aircraft carrier and fixed wing aircraft"
Well, F-8s are fighters, why not go A-7s instead of A-4s? (That's my plan. ;))
F4D instead of and earlier than Skyhawk
As much as I would have loved to see Sea Vixens, Bucks and AEW Gannets in the RAN FAA I think Australia would have been better served with Skyhawks, Trackers and maybe Tracers, especially if the Skyhawks received a suitable upgrade incorporating a radar.
5. The UK offered HMS Hermes (in her CTOL configuration) to Australia in the mid 60s
Please don't take this as personal criticism my dear Volkodav, on reading this interesting thread again, I can't help wonder how big and heavy the Sea Vixen was and was it not already past it's prime by the early 70's....🤔
| Sea Vixen Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h Range: 1,270 km Service ceiling: 48,000 ft Rate of climb: 46 m/s | A-4G Skyhawk Maximum speed: 1,086 km/h Range: 644 km Service ceiling: 47,900 ft Rate of climb: 28.5 m/s |
Quote5. The UK offered HMS Hermes (in her CTOL configuration) to Australia in the mid 60s
Please excuse my ignorance, but in real-world terms, was such an offer ever made as such?
Please don't take this as personal criticism my dear Volkodav, on reading this interesting thread again, I can't help wonder how big and heavy the Sea Vixen was and was it not already past it's prime by the early 70's....🤔
Sea Vixen stats:
Length: 55 ft 7 in (16.94 m)
Wingspan: 51 ft 0 in (15.54 m)
Height: 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m)
Empty weight: 27,950 lb (12,678 kg)
Performance compared to A-4G:
Sea Vixen
Maximum speed: 1,110 km/h
Range: 1,270 km
Service ceiling: 48,000 ft
Rate of climb: 46 m/sA-4G Skyhawk
Maximum speed: 1,086 km/h
Range: 644 km
Service ceiling: 47,900 ft
Rate of climb: 28.5 m/s
Though having said that, it was a much bigger bird being nearly 3 times heavier. Both entered service in the mid-late 1950s.Quote5. The UK offered HMS Hermes (in her CTOL configuration) to Australia in the mid 60s
Please excuse my ignorance, but in real-world terms, was such an offer ever made as such?
Interesting question. I see the mention of this repeated all over the place but can't see any formal reference to it. Interestingly enough, in 1964 the RAN stated the following in relation to options for a new carrier to replace the HMAS Melbourne (see Para 33):
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/e68/GTwiner/ShowImage.aspx-2.jpeg)
CFBV
Just been looking back over this thread &, as Greg mentioned, what if we'd looked at Essex-class carriers earlier?Only two were still were cancelled while still under construction.
Actually before the Majestics? After all, there were incomplete late (big) Essex's sitting idle in American slipways waiting to be scrapped (we could, almost, have bought the hulls for scrap-value & then had them completed) & the Labour government had turned more to the USA for military assistance than the UK, so it makes some level of sense.