And now for something completely different...RAAF chooses EE Lightning over Mirage.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT

Aussiegunneragain 6/15/2009 8:48:35 AM

I've looked at this. The big heartburns are programmed purchases and operating costs and I've tried to factor those in. it as I discussed. My baseline was money was 2.5 % of GDP. I'm glad to see my assumptions were not too far off. It turns out that pourchasing the hull of a Centaur was 6-8% greater than the Majestics you did purchase. The problem is that you modernized the Majestics (one) with exactly the same kind of deck and handling machinery that you would use that I need to allow you to operate the aircraft that we discuss here EXCEPT the lifts. Too quote Volkadav, steel is cheap. You should have bought the Centaurs.

I'm sceptical about that cost estimate and I'd like to see a reference from a reputable source. I'd also note that your cost estimate excludes the cost of purchasing two bigger airgroups of more expensive radar equipped fighters and the considerably higher running/manning costs of the Centaurs.

However, even if the purchase cost is true it is irrelevant. The HMAS Sydney arrived in Australian service in 1948 and the HMAS Melbourne in 1955 (it only took that long because we modernised it with an angled flight deck etc during construction). HMS Centaur didn't arrive in RN service until 1954 and the last ship of the class, HMAS Hermes, arrived in 1959. After Sandy's the Brits might have directed one of their carriers to us ahead of the RN, but I can't see that we would have gotten one until 1958 at the earliest. That would have meant that we would have gone for 10 years without a carrier (incidentally ruling out the HMAS Sydney's service in Korea). That clearly wouldn't have been acceptable given that our post war naval strategy revolved around aircraft carriers, so buying the Centaurs instead of the Majestics wasn't an option. If we had gotten them it would have been in addition to the Majestics which would probably have then been retired and we couldn't have afforded that.

The light carriers allowed you do something that we realized as far back as Magic Carpet and even during later operations in WW II: move lots of troops and their equipment in a big hurry. Where do you think the LPH for us came from? An aircraft carrier was/is a base ship. I know that is leap ahead thinking, but that hanger is a garage.

We didn't buy carriers with the intention of using them as troopships and they couldn't perform that task and operate as a carrier at the same time. The Sydney was just used that way because it was too shagged to do anything else with.

Aside from that you have to think about your geography. Your AO is mostly water dotted with islands. How do you cover your allies to your east and west? That dictator was threatening everything from Malaysia and the Andamans to Fiji and the southern Philuppines. (Yes, he was that crazy.) As for the north, your coverage has to reach Java and threaten his Slocs.as well as defend your own. (more about that below.)

Malaysia had airfields and the UK as an ally, as well as us. The Phillipines had airfields and the US as an ally, as well as us. The Andamans are an Indian territory, not our problem. Fiji? In the highly unlikly event that Surkano acted against Fiji the carriers we had would have been fine as the Indo's didn't have any carriers at all.

b. Okay, so now you are at sea and your six Badgers and one recon bird announced themselves as they hunt for you, say north of Darwin in the Arrafura Sea. He has to fly his bombers out beyond his Mig cover to reach you. (Trust me on this, most of the MiGs he has are cannon armed, are target defense interceptors, barely an hour in the air at cruise. He can't cover out that far. His bombers have to come to you without air escort.

Thanks for the entertaining read on the Battle of the Arafura Sea but before you wrote it you should have considered th

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Volkodav 6/15/2009 8:56:54 AM

The RAN at the same time was intended to provide an ASW escort group and a brigade amphibious lift in support of the RN in SEA. This priority was behind the RAN's concentration on ASW at a time when the regional submarine threat was minimal Common sense would have suggested that a smaller number of general purpose warships with decent Anti-air, surface and submarine capability would have been more useful than the slightly larger number of specialist ASW ships that were useless against air or surface targets (the Q class conversions) or of limited use (the River class) that formed a major part or our fleet.

We did that because that because our defence policy at the time was oriented towards helping our allies to the Cold War, which meant defending merchant shipping against Soviet submarines. They had submarines in the Pacific and in the Indian ocean and it would have been easy for them to send more had they wanted to. That task was the main game for the navy, while defending PNG and suppressing communism in SEA was the main emphasis of the army and the airforce.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 6/15/2009 9:49:48 AM

don't forget that the russians were cheeky enough to shove a nuke on the surface just outside the Great Australian Bite - just to send a message in the late 80's.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/15/2009 11:54:19 AM

I've looked at this. The big heartburns are programmed purchases and operating costs and I've tried to factor those in. it as I discussed. My baseline was money was 2.5 % of GDP. I'm glad to see my assumptions were not too far off. It turns out that pourchasing the hull of a Centaur was 6-8% greater than the Majestics you did purchase. The problem is that you modernized the Majestics (one) with exactly the same kind of deck and handling machinery that you would use that I need to allow you to operate the aircraft that we discuss here EXCEPT the lifts. Too quote Volkadav, steel is cheap. You should have bought the Centaurs.

I'm sceptical about that cost estimate and I'd like to see a reference from a reputable source. I'd also note that your cost estimate excludes the cost of purchasing two bigger airgroups of more expensive radar equipped fighters and the considerably higher running/manning costs of the Centaurs.

First, there were eight Centaurs on the weighs. Four cancelled. (Purchase opportinity at reduced rates in 1945?) Centaur was hulked in 1965. She was a purchase opportunity in 1958. Bulwark ditto. A country looking for aircraft carriers at the time was Chile. Marketing strategy sell one Majesoc buy one Centaur. Overcome British objections with the Commonwealth fleet foilderol they peddled at the time.. . .

However, even if the purchase cost is true it is irrelevant. The HMAS Sydney arrived in Australian service in 1948 and the HMAS Melbourne in 1955 (it only took that long because we modernised it with an angled flight deck etc during construction). HMS Centaur didn't arrive in RN service until 1954 and the last ship of the class, HMAS Hermes, arrived in 1959. After Sandy's the Brits might have directed one of their carriers to us ahead of the RN, but I can't see that we would have gotten one until 1958 at the earliest. That would have meant that we would have gone for 10 years without a carrier (incidentally ruling out the HMAS Sydney's service in Korea). That clearly wouldn't have been acceptable given that our post war naval strategy revolved around aircraft carriers, so buying the Centaurs instead of the Majestics wasn't an option. If we had gotten them it would have been in addition to the Majestics which would probably have then been retired and we couldn't have afforded that.

Do like the Canadians and French did and get one on "loan". You need to learnb ops anyway. How about borrow a CVE or two until yours are ready?). Not hard to do. As to modernoization. Before we ran our shipbuilding industry down, Uncle was farly good. How about Newport News or Bethlehem? Two shipyards were noted for their Essex conversions. Faster and cheaper than waiting for the guys on the Clyde to figure it out. SCB 125......just tack two more into the queue and away you go. . .

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Gagh typos! Need to add some technical stuff. 6/15/2009 1:29:53 PM

I've looked at this. The big heartburns are programmed purchases and operating costs and I've tried to factor those in. it as I discussed. My baseline was money was 2.5 % of GDP. I'm glad to see my assumptions were not too far off. It turns out that purchasing the hull of a Centaur was 6-8% greater than the Majestics you did purchase. The problem is that you modernized the Majestics (one) with exactly the same kind of deck and handling machinery that you would use that I need to allow you to operate the aircraft that we discuss here EXCEPT the lifts. Too quote Volkadav, steel is cheap. You should have bought the Centaurs.

I'm skeptical about that cost estimate and I'd like to see a reference from a reputable source. I'd also note that your cost estimate excludes the cost of purchasing two bigger air groups of more expensive radar equipped fighters and the considerably higher running/manning costs of the Centaurs.

First, there were eight Centaurs on the weighs. Four canceled. (Purchase opportunity at reduced rates in 1945?) Centaur was hulked in 1965. She was a purchase opportunity in 1958. Bulwark ditto. A country looking for aircraft carriers at the time was Chile. Marketing strategy sell one Majestic buy one Centaur. Overcome British objections with the Commonwealth fleet folderol they peddled at the time.. . .

However, even if the purchase cost is true it is irrelevant. The HMAS Sydney arrived in Australian service in 1948 and the HMAS Melbourne in 1955 (it only took that long because we modernized it with an angled flight deck etc during construction). HMS Centaur didn't arrive in RN service until 1954 and the last ship of the class, HMAS Hermes, arrived in 1959. After Sandy's the Brits might have directed one of their carriers to us ahead of the RN, but I can't see that we would have gotten one until 1958 at the earliest. That would have meant that we would have gone for 10 years without a carrier (incidentally ruling out the HMAS Sydney's service in Korea). That clearly wouldn't have been acceptable given that our post war naval strategy revolved around aircraft carriers, so buying the Centaurs instead of the Majestics wasn't an option. If we had gotten them it would have been in addition to the Majestics which would probably have then been retired and we couldn't have afforded that.

Do like the Canadians and French did and get one on "loan". You need to learn ops anyway. How about borrow a CVE or two until yours are ready?). Not hard to do. As to modernization. Before we ran our shipbuilding industry down, Uncle was fairly good. How about Newport News or Bethlehem? Two shipyards were noted for their Essex conversions. Faster and cheaper than waiting for the guys on the Clyde to figure it out. SCB 125......just tack two more into the queue and away you go. . .

Quote Reply

StevoJH 6/15/2009 6:36:28 PM

Since all these are hypothetical.

It's 1950, the British, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian Governments Make various commitments regarding their Militaries. Canada and Australia each commit themselves to maintain 2 carrier groups each, to be built around as yet uncompleted Centaur class Carriers. The British commit themselves to maintain a force of six carriers by 1960, initially to be made up of the two Audacious class carriers along with two modernised Implacable class carriers and the two most modernised Majestic class CVL's, Melbourne and Powerful. The RCN and RAN each receive a pair of Collossus or Majestic class Carriers to build carrier skills which are to be handed back to the RN as the Centaurs are commissioned.

Canada and Australia also agree to provide a minimum force of 15 Escorts each, with 3 of the Australian quota to be supplied by New Zealand. In Principle it is agreed that commonality in ship classes and weapons systems is desirable across the four navies. As a result of this the Navies replace their world war two era ASW assets with Leander class frigates throughout the 1960's, with Australia and Canada ordering modified Bristol class ships in the late 1980's to be their AAW ships due to a lack of Satisfaction with the Sea Slug fitted to the Counties.

The RN orders 3 ships of the Queen Elizabeth class in the Early 1970's to replace three of its large carriers and 3 smaller ships of the Invincible class as ASW and Commando carriers to replace the 2 Light carriers and the second Implacable. Australia and Canada each order a pair of Invincible class ships to replace their Centaurs.

Leanders replaced by Type 23 Duke class frigates in the early 1990's, with the Bristols replaced by T45 Daring class destroyers in the late 1990's and early 2000's.

Modified Bristols: Sea Dart in B, hanger aft where Sea Dart was. Ikara midships between the engine rooms.

The RN purchases 15 Bristols instead of the 1 in OTL to give commonality. The 14 T42's are not built.

Army - Australia Agree's to provide one mechanised and two light infantry brigades from the active army with a further two mechanised and 4 light infantry from the reserve forces. Canada agree's to provide 1.5 time the Australian contribution (larger population) and the UK sticks to the OTL OOB.

Airforce - Canberra Medium Bombers to be replaced by TSR-2, Lightnings or F105 Arrows followed by Tornado's and then Typhoons.

How much of a fantasy world do i live in? :D

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Herald 6/16/2009 7:24:20 AM

The continueing problems with your proposition are as follows.

1. Your proposition is entirely constructed with the benefit of hindsight. In 1946 Australia ordered 3 Majestics (and eventually got two) before it was known how heavy naval fighters would get. The prototype of the Sea Vixen only flew in 1951. You are not only relying on the Australian government knowing this unknowable fact, but you are relying on adequate numbers of light British carriers being available to lend us (we did borrow the Vengance for a couple of years in the early 50's, after Korea, but there was no guarantee that we could have gotten any more until the mid 50's). Your alternative of buying the Majestics and selling them to replace them with the Centaurs/Essex's, relies on us knowing when we ordered the later that we would have a buyer who would give a reasonable price for the former once the replacement time came. All your dots would have had to line up for this to work but in real life they very seldom do.

2. You are still ignoring the fact that the Centaurs/Essex's had higher purchase and operating costs than the Majestics. Aside from the purchase cost the Centaurs/Essex's the Centaur had 50% more crew than the Majestic's and the Essex's had double the crew. The proportions are the same for the size of the airwings and the aircraft purchased for the bigger carriers were much more expensive. Additionally the Centaurs/Essex's both needed to be upgraded throughout the 50's/60's just like the Majestic's did/would have. It wasn't until the Hermes that they got it right the first time.

3. You continue to ignore the most important question, even if they were able to survive on meaningful operations within range of the Badgers, why would we purchase larger carriers to do a job in our region that land based aircraft could do better and cheaper? There were airbases within range of every one of the AO's that you talk about except for Fiji, which frankly is a fanciful scenario. You also don't mention that in every conceivable operation other than in PNG, we would be virtually guaranteed of the British or the US leading and providing most of the equipment. We should of course always have looked to make a meaningful contribution to the efforts of our allies, and we could have in those scenarios with or without carriers. However, we should always be primarily shaping our force mix around the operations where we would have to make the greatest commitment, like we did.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/16/2009 11:11:06 AM

Since all these are hypothetical.

It's 1950, the British, Canadian, New Zealand and Australian Governments make various commitments regarding their militaries. Canada and Australia each commit themselves to maintain 2 carrier groups each, to be built around as yet uncompleted Centaur class Carriers. The British commit themselves to maintain a force of six carriers by 1960, initially to be made up of the two Audacious class carriers along with two modernised Implacable class carriers and the two most modernised Majestic class CVL's, Melbourne and Powerful. The RCN and RAN each receive a pair of Collossus or Majestic class Carriers to build carrier skills which are to be handed back to the RN as the Centaurs are commissioned.

Questions:

Why do the British use worn out Implacables again? Better idea, save money.....pay off the Implacables and build all,four Audacious and be done with it. After the Pearl Harbor fiasco of the HMS Victorious refit in USN yards, the clue phone rang in Admniralty House that you needed bigger and taller hangers. Hence Centaurs and Majestics in the first place! A core fleet of four Audacious carriers gives you the usable FAA you need for coverage. The Centaurs (build at least six because Britain needs two commando carriers) form the light carriers the commonwealth users receuve and thgen send at least one or two WW II loaners to the commonwealth users to learn on whule the new builds finish up. Projected deliveries for New byuldsa are 1955-1958. so the WW II shipas get turned into LPHs, ASW carriers or broken up.

Canada and Australia also agree to provide a minimum force of 15 Escorts each, with 3 of the Australian quota to be supplied by New Zealand. In principle it is agreed that commonality in ship classes and weapons systems is desirable across the four navies. As a result of this the Navies replace their world war two era ASW assets with Leander class frigates throughout the 1960's, with Australia and Canada ordering modified Bristol class ships in the late 1980's to be their AAW ships due to a lack of Satisfaction with the Sea Slug fitted to the Counties.

First of all..........

What kind of Leander or Type 12? There were four separate types.

Its likely that a Australia can only afford six and New Zealand two.

Why would you buy Bristols? The thing was worse than the Counties. At least with the Counties you could tear out the raised weatherdeck Sea Slug abomination, and install a Terrier/Tartar magazine (or two, if you build in Canada and Australia from scratch), and a helo shelter along with that big fat Wessex helo and an Ikara.).

Where do they get the money?

Leanders replaced by Type 23 Duke class frigates in the early 1990's, with the Bristols replaced by T45 Daring class destroyers in the late 1990's and early 2000's.

Darings in the 1990s? Where do they get the tech?

Modified Bristols: Sea Dart in B, hanger aft where Sea Dart was. Ikara midships between the engine rooms.

Sea Dart I is somewhat slightly inferior to STANDARD Mk 66. If you already have a Terrier/Tartar County install a Type 988 3D radar and The Tartar Fire Control system and apply the New Threat upgrade as necessary.

The RN purchases 15 Bristols instead of the 1 in OTL to give commonality. The 14 T42's are not built.

All three nations together could afford about 12-14 Counties and maybe twice as many Leanders.

Army - Australia agree's to provide one mechanised and two light infantry brigades from the active army with a further two mechanised and 4 light infantry from the reserve forces. Canada agree's to provide 1.5 time the Australian contribution (larger population) and the UK sticks to the OTL OOB.

Where do they get the money?

Airforce - Canberra Medium Bombers to be replaced by TSR-2, Lightnin

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/16/2009 11:52:37 AM

The continueing problems with your proposition are as follows.

Oh?

True enough, but then contemporary accounts already showed the planned F-84s as being a heartburn to operate off the Essexes. By 1950 you SHOULD have shopped the Centaurs. Other warning signs are also there for you as early as 1943. MIDWAYS would not have been built under the USN war emergency program if we could have stuck with something Essex-sized. We were running short of steel, but with the new carrier planes we planned for 1946-47 if the war dragged on that long, we needed the bigger carriers..

So what? a. The actual modernization costs of a Centaur and Majestic were roughly equivalernt. b. I already addressed the purchase costs at the outgo as calculated on the weigh as being 6% greater than Majestics as they were elephants the British had to unload, Manpower and operations I addressed by looking at manpower and force cost cuts elsewhere. c. You lose a tank brigade, the Darings, a couple of Rivers, you buy a simplified Leander for pure ASW work and fighter direction, You buy Adamses as your body guard ships, buy American for youe naval SAMS, you SLEP the Canberras, you buy Drakens instead of Miracles, buy Thunderbird, TALOS, and/ or HAWK instead of the very expensive Bloodhound., go Swedish on the bombs and rockets instead of French and American, what do you want MIRACLES? d. The only cost increase was thetwo Counties and the only justification for those I thought was you needed the additional helos.

One; the US did not supply assistance to East Timor 1975. We actually interfered as I recall. Same again in 1999. So Australia cannot automatically assume. If you need an object lesson in this, then look at Israel today. We have some real nimrods in the USG. As long as we continue to throw up vomitus like a Kissinger, a Clinton, a Gates, a Carter, or others of that ilk, you need to watch out for yourselves.

Quote Reply

StevoJH 6/16/2009 1:00:49 PM

Since all these are hypothetical.

Questions:

Why did the RN rebuild Illustrious instead of finishing another Audacious class?

First of all..........

What kind of Leander or Type 12? There were four separate types.

Preferrably broadbeam, and there were only two variants of the Leander (there were four of the T12, of which the Leanders were two)

Its likely that a Australia can only afford six and New Zealand two.

In Australia defense spending wasnt exactly high in comparison to other countries in that period. Strangely New Zealand operated 4 Leanders, not two, while two were "hand me downs" from the RN, they also operated a pair of Whitby's until the second pair of Leanders were made available.

Very Modified Bristols without their main short coming, No helo. Basicly oversized T42's with Ikara.

Where do they get the money?

The RN ships were already planned, until cancelled, the RAN was purchasing one, the second could be purchased by not buying the OHP's, The RCN/CF has a larger economy then Australia, if we can, they can.

Leanders replaced by Type 23 Duke class frigates in the early 1990's, with the Bristols replaced by T45 Da

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT