Author Topic: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options  (Read 12361 times)

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2022, 12:56:04 AM »
Highly unlikely, far too "hot".
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2022, 03:51:26 AM »



CFBVs

Audacious class "HMAS Melbourne". Two RAN F-4Ks sitting on the catapults, with a gaggle of British F-4Ks or Sea Vixens and Buccaneers parked around the deck.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2022, 03:56:20 AM by GTX_Admin »
All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2022, 03:54:35 PM »
The two ocean navy concept was pushed by ex PM Malcom Fraser when he was defence minister 69-71.  This two ocean navy was meant to have three CTOL carriers and 23 destroyers and frigates.

I first became aware of this via a conversation I had with a FAA member in the mid 80s and assumed it referred to multiple STOVL carriers, I later discovered via old periodicals in the uni library, that it referred to announcements and statements made by Fraser when Def min.

There have been stories over the years of ex RN carriers, Hermes for instance in her CTOL config but also Eagle.  Victorious also (possibly) just fits this time frame as she wasn't listed for disposal until 1969.

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #28 on: July 10, 2022, 04:25:40 PM »
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.

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....🤔


Quote
5. 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?


MAD
« Last Edit: July 10, 2022, 04:36:00 PM by M.A.D »

Offline GTX_Admin

  • Evil Administrator bent on taking over the Universe!
  • Administrator - Yep, I'm the one to blame for this place.
  • Whiffing Demi-God!
    • Beyond the Sprues
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #29 on: July 11, 2022, 01:55:17 AM »
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/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

Though having said that, it was a much bigger bird being nearly 3 times heavier.  Both entered service in the mid-late 1950s.


Quote
5. 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):



CFBV

All hail the God of Frustration!!!

You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it.

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2022, 09:34:51 AM »
The Ford was actually kind of craptastic, from the formal acceptance test reports:


When carrying ordnance and/or drop tanks the Ford's flight characteristics were even worse and you could
forget about going Mach 1 even in a dive.
 ;D

It's one of those cases of "looks cool, too bad its meh".  :icon_fsm:
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline M.A.D

  • Also likes a bit of arse...
  • Wrote a great story about a Christmas Air Battle
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #31 on: July 12, 2022, 07:25:37 PM »
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/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

Though having said that, it was a much bigger bird being nearly 3 times heavier.  Both entered service in the mid-late 1950s.


Quote
5. 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):



CFBV

Thanks GTX

MAD

Offline Old Wombat

  • "We'll see when I've finished whether I'm showing off or simply embarrassing myself."
  • "Define 'interesting'?"
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2022, 09:34:47 PM »
Just been looking back over this thread &, as Greg mentioned, what if we'd looked at Essex-class carriers earlier?

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.
"This is the Captain. We have a little problem with our engine sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and, ah, explode."

Offline jcf

  • Global Moderator
  • Turn that Gila-copter down!
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #33 on: July 13, 2022, 01:52:47 AM »
Just been looking back over this thread &, as Greg mentioned, what if we'd looked at Essex-class carriers earlier?

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.
Only two were still were cancelled while still under construction.

This is the state of the CV-46 USS Iwo Jima when cancelled in 1946, scrapped in place in 1949.


CV 35 USS Reprisal was further along when cancelled in 1945, but still far from being a ship.
The hull was floated out later that year to clear the slip, and scrapped in 1949.


Completing either would have been horrifically expensive, particularly CV-46.
“Conspiracy theory’s got to be simple.
Sense doesn’t come into it. People are
more scared of how complicated shit
actually is than they ever are about
whatever’s supposed to be behind the
conspiracy.”
-The Peripheral, William Gibson 2014

Offline Jonesthetank

  • Almost as dumb as I look
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #34 on: July 14, 2022, 01:03:17 AM »
Stretching the narative slightly further, how about the USN decides to proceed with more Midway class carriers (as the last three were cancelled), allowing them to offer the RAN one or two of the earlier Essex class ships as the new Midways enter service?

The RAN would be hit with the cost of any SCB style modernisations, but would end up with more capable carriers than the Majestics, before and after any rebuilds.

Offline Volkodav

  • Counts rivits with his abacus...
  • Much older now...but procrastinating about it
Re: Realistic alternative RAN FAA options
« Reply #35 on: July 14, 2022, 09:19:05 PM »
I still like the story that the RN was looking to have Australia crew Implacable and Indefatigable (ironically they would have required RN FAA squadrons which in all probability would have been made up of a large proportion of New Zealanders).  There were several possible transfers of Colossus Class carriers, cruisers and destroyers as well.  The RN/RAN left the Australian Government out of the loop and the RAN was being closely integrated with the USN, not the BPF (British Pacifica Fleet) which made this impractical.  The UK had also assumed Australia was providing extensive logistic support, port services etc to the RN for free, so had no issue with transferring ships, this changed when they got the bill.

None the less, Australian crewed Implacables are fully transferred to the RAN post war, then modernised to operate CAC built AVON Furies and Grumman Tigers, in addition to Avenger ASW and AEW aircraft.