Alternate Post WWII RAN: Carriers

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Herald12345 Ouch! 7/2/2009 3:32:30 PM

What am I supposed to do? a staff study?

Give me a day. and I will roll it all together in ONE presentation.

Time start will be 1944.

Quote Reply

hairy man 7/2/2009 9:07:48 PM

For a start I would say we would accept two. For aircraft we would initially have Hawker Sea Fury F.B. Mk.II.

Carry on folks.

Quote Reply

hairy man 7/2/2009 9:10:38 PM

As Britain would be handing over these ships shortly after the completion of World War II., I am presuming that they are being commissioned into the R.A.N. in about 1947, so the Sea Fury would be available to us.

Quote Reply

DropBear 7/2/2009 9:58:23 PM

I think two would be a suitable number for the times (scaling down from end of WW2).

One for local waters (SE Asia) and one we could deploy to the Med etc (showing the flag).

I think aircraft would mirror that of the RN of the day. I think we may have looked at the Supermarine Attacker and probably offload them around 1951-53 to Pakistan in the same manner the Poms did.

Without doing a hardcore analysis (hello Herald

) I would just through some ideas around and suggest that maybe the Sup Scimitar could be a viable choice as an interim fighter and useful striker (well it did fly from HMS Victorious, which is not much larger than a Colly type carrier) post-Sea Venom.

The Scimitar was capable of firing Winder in much the same way we used Scooter for the fleet defence role in latter years.

I still think Fairey Firefly's and the other props we used in reality would be used here.

Quote Reply

DropBear 7/2/2009 10:03:04 PM

Hmmm...Could we launch the North American Fury from a Colly or are we deck dimmension/catapult averse?

I'm thinking that if a Majestic can throw a Scooter into the air then we could have used the Fury (perhaps after initial use of the Scimitar) on the decks as it would have some basic commonality with the RAAF's Sabres.

Perhaps use Scimitar for ground attack and Fury for top cover?

Curious.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Volkodav 7/3/2009 2:38:21 AM

Carrying on from the "gift" fleet on the Lightning post.
The RAN is gifted a number of modern ships including one, two or three Colossus class light fleet carriers.

How many would we get, which aircraft would we operate initially and which aircraft would succeed them post war then into the 50's. How would the carriers be modernised / modified, what roles would they be adapted to, how long would they serve and finally what, if anything, would they be replaced with?

We would undoubtedly do pretty much the same as we did with the Majestics because they were an earlier version of that class. Perhaps you are thinking of the Centaurs?

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain Dropbear 7/3/2009 2:51:55 AM

Hmmm...Could we launch the North American Fury from a Colly or are we deck dimmension/catapult averse?

I looked at the Fury when we were having the other discussion and it looked to me like it was in the ballpark with the Skyhawk (it was shorter but had bigger, folding spanned wings and comparable weights). I'd imagine if they hadn't decided to turn the Melbourne into a purely rotary ASW carrier in the late 50's then it would have been a contender.

What I was thinking though was if CAC could knock together some sort of hybrid with the tail hook, undercarriage and folding wings from the Fury, the radar and FCS from the F-86K or L, the Avon engine and 30mm Adens from the CAC Sabre and the dual AIM-9B/C capability for head on SARH attack followed by tail chase from the F-8. That would provide a good anti-bomber capability and acceptable anti-fighter capability until the late 60's.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 7/3/2009 8:01:16 AM

We would undoubtedly do pretty much the same as we did with the Majestics because they were an earlier version of that class. Perhaps you are thinking of the Centaurs?

No I was definitely thinking of the Colossus class as these are the ships the RN was looking at transferring to the RAN, free of charge, in 1944 and 45.

The reason these ships were on offer is an acute manning shortage meant the RN was not able to commission all of the war emergency program ships that were nearing completion in 1944. The plan was that Australia and Canada would each take on one or more newly completed carriers allowing the RN to commission the remainder of the ships. Instead, when Australia dilly dallied, the UK delayed the completion of most of the new carriers as there was no point expending further resources completing ships they couldn't crew, meaning only four instead sixteen saw service in WWII.

The whole premise of this thread is the RAN receiving their carriers several years earlier than they did in reality, for no cost. There was very little difference between the Colossus class and the Majestic class and as both classes were built concurrently there was no real difference in their potential service lives.

End result the RAN gets its carriers and Fleet Air Arm in time to see service in WWII, these ships are still effective and serve with distinction in Korea. Perhaps above all, having not been required to pay for them the RAN has plenty of money to modify or replace them in the second half of the 50's to allow two carriers to be operated through the 60's and 70's, hopefully being replaced in the 80's.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 7/3/2009 8:07:40 AM

FJ-4B, bring it on!

Quote Reply

Herald12345 real quick on initial aorcraft choice. 7/3/2009 3:59:31 PM

I think two would be a suitable number for the times (scaling down from end of WW2).

I think two would be all that the RAN could man. I posit a 5,000 man limit here.

One for local waters (SE Asia) and one we could deploy to the Med etc (showing the flag).

???????????????????????? The SW Pacific is far more important to you..

I think aircraft would mirror that of the RN of the day. I think we may have looked at the Supermarine Attacker and probably offload them around 1951-53 to Pakistan in the same manner the Poms did.

I would reject the attacker out of hand (tail dragger design +jet engine =crashes and melted flight deck.

Without doing a hardcore analysis (hello Herald

Sea Scimitar is TOO big. More crashes and stowing problems.

The Scimitar was capable of firing Winder in much the same way we used Scooter for the fleet defence role in latter years.

True.

I still think Fairey Firefly's and the other props we used in reality would be used here.

Selection list.

Blackburn Firecrest: later development of the inadequate Firebrand, can carry a good bomb load from a light carrier, has good cannon armament and is a good starter aircraft tactically effective to the late 1950s early 1960s. reminds me of a Skyraider. well within CAC capability to build locally.

DeHavilland Sea Venom: Not too spectacular, about on a par with a Panther, but with a shorter take off run. No radar and no missiles. Once again a good starter jet aircraft for the RAN. CAC can make this bird.

Hawker Sea Fury: an earlier contemporary of the Firecrest. Chief complaint is the weak tailhook, otherwise its a toss up as to what you want. I prefer the heavier cannon of the Firecrest as the likely local opposition are going to be piston engined Yaks and Migs at least until Konfrontassi.

Hawker Sea Hawk: good aircraft. Too short ranged for Australia's AO, bit as a standard starter jet type I like this aircraft as much as I like the Venom. Again no radar or missiles possible in the upgrade.

Conclusions: For starter own aircraft for local manufacture, out of the British tech tree, the two choices I make are the Firecrest and the Sea Venom. The Firecrest can serve for DECADES as is. Sea Venom will translate later on into Sea Vixens as you make the trade up to missile armed fighters.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carriers: I'm not happy with the Colossus Class. the Majestics were reworled to improve some of the aircraft handling defects in the Colossus class, but if the two Colossi are taken in hand and at RAN insistence equipped with Centaur style elevators or even sent to the US and refitted to US standards, then I can live with the two of them.

Keeping with the operational experience at the time, you can emphasize meduim caliber flak and fit in the usual radars and install a fighter director. Since Australia has to operate the type (1944) the SINGLE critical aircraft type needs to be selected.

This was likely to be the Firefly unless anb American aircraft (Hellcat) was selected.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

American aircraft choices:

A-1 Skyraider: Douglas Aircraft is legendary for a reason Here is one more of many reasons The Skyraider can serve for decades for much the same reason as the Firecrest-tough bird good as a CAS/COIN aircraft.

FJ Fury: FJ-4A(R) version. Since CAC built their own version of Sabre why not the Fury to go with it? This bird does not have the bomb loft of a Skyhawk, but that is why you have the Skyraiders, until you obtain Slyhawk. In the meantime, this will be a good fighter/bomber (with the CAC Saber style mods you add an intercept radar).

Starter kit is Hellcats and Avengers.

More later.

Herald

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Choices of detroyer 7/4/2009 2:44:27 AM

I'm looking at continuing the construction of Tribals in Australia and the transfer of C-class and Battles as soon as possible with the 4.5'/45 as the standard instead of the 4.7 Fit 40mm/70s instead of the 2 pounder pompoms and fit the ASW miertars in B position as soon as practical as well as the standard British ASW 128 and 132 sonar kit. 273 Radar air search and 262 gunfire radar fitted as well. I'm completely open to whichever class of 1942 cruiser you can get as long as the manning is not over 700 men per ship. I would prefer WW II Leanders as these can be fitted as AAW carrier escorts with substitye 4.5'/45 mounts for the 5.25'/45 disasters that they originally carried..

Failing that, the modufied Fiji class, 4 of those with their adequate AAA and 6'/45s as ASuSh guns should be a good fit for whay I envision for a 1950's fleet-especially as I see the Fijis receiving a Terrier refit around 1958. (You can fit the Ikara where the crane and seaplane would go and the after mast can be rebuilt to take a Terrier Fire Control System)

Here LOOK.

Herald

Quote Reply

Volkodav 7/4/2009 2:48:03 AM

I was thinking Corsairs and Avengers to start with before switching to Sea Furies in place of the Corsairs while keeping the Avengers or going for Skyraiders or Firecrests . If we modernised the carriers to operate jets in the early 50's the logical choices would have been the Banshee, Sea Hawk, or Sea Venom as these aircraft were operated from Colossus and Majestic class carriers by various navies. Argentina did operate the Panther but not from her carrier.

The Sea Venom was a two seat, radar equipped cannon armed fighter with later versions being fitted with Firestreak. This was a good aircraft for the 50's and could have served quite well into the 60's with DH even working on high performance swept wing derivatives that would have fitted on a CVL quite easily, prior to the RN insisting they concentrate on the Sea Vixen. The Sea Hawk was also available in a radar equipped all weather fighter variant, as used by Germany, as well as being fitted with Sidewinder by the Dutch. Add this to the swept wing P1081 variant that led to the Hunter and you have some real potential.

One thing I am less sure on with the RAN FAA is their fixed wing ASW element. I can't help but wonder if they would have been better off skipping the very large Gannets and Trackers all together to free up space on the carriers for useful numbers of a fighter bomber or attack type to back up the Sea Venoms, with Wessex, then Sea King taking over the fleet based ASW role and the RAAF getting an extra squadron of MPA's to cover the shore based work the Gannets and Trackers did. This could have seen FGA Sea Hawk, or even go for a mix of FGA and night fighter Sea Hawks with Wyverns in the medium attack role serving on the CVL's giving them some real hitting power until they could be replaced with bigger ships in the 60's or 70's.

Quote Reply

Volkodav 7/4/2009 8:50:06 AM

During the late thirties Australia initially planned to build a full flottilla of 8 Tribals but was only able to complete 3 by 1945. The Tribals were initially conceived as small cruisers / super destroyers, as were popular in Europe before the war, but recast as large destroyers with the Dido class being developed to fill the cruiser role instead.

I have some thoughts on what we should have done to improve our Tribals as built. When you compare the performance and capability of the of the twin 4.7" to the twin 4" there appears to have been a real case to have armed the Tribals with a uniform battery of 4" guns instead of 4.7". The 4" mounts vastly superior AA performance, greater rate of fire, slightly higher muzzle velocity and lower but not significantly so projectile weight would have made for a far superior fit on the Tribals.

I would prefer WW II Leanders as these can be fitted as AAW carrier escorts with substitye 4.5'/45 mounts for the 5.25'/45 disasters that they originally carried..

5.25"? I assume you are refering to the 8000t Dido class CLAA not the pre war 8000t 6"armed Leanders?

The Dido's would have been a good fit in the RAN as well but with 4.5" in place of the 5.25" of the original design with the weight saved used for torpedoes and Bofors. Alternatively, if they were specifically redesigned for the RAN additional 4.5" mounts could be worked in for a total of 6 twins mounts.

If we went for Dido's armed with 4.5" we would still need something with bigger guns which means we are back to the Crown Colony and Minator classes. This would actually work out well as the Didos have significantly smaller crews than the larger cruisers so if the RAN went 50/50 Didio's and Minataurs there would be an overal crew saving of about 400. The Dido's could be rebuilt with Tartar and the Minataurs with Terrier, the fit Giuseppe Garibaldi received in her 1957 to 61 modernistaion is a good guide for what could be done.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/4/2009 11:33:03 AM

The problem with the Tribals was the poor choice of GUN. They were perfectly fine as escorts at the size they were. They could even carry a radar and a fighter director as well as the late war ASW systems.

I have some thoughts on what we should have done to improve our Tribals as built. When you compare the performance and capability of the of the twin 4.7" to the twin 4" there appears to have been a real case to have armed the Tribals with a uniform battery of 4" guns instead of 4.7". The 4" mounts vastly superior AA performance, greater rate of fire, slightly higher muzzle velocity and lower but not significantly so projectile weight would have made for a far superior fit on the Tribals.

4'/50 twins might work. I was thinking of shore bombardment, though, as well as anti-ship work which is still a major gun function in the 1950s and 1960s.

I would prefer WW II Leanders as these can be fitted as AAW carrier escorts with substitute 4.5'/45 mounts for the 5.25'/45 disasters that they originally carried..

5.25"? I assume you are refering to the 8000t Dido class CLAA not the pre war 8000t 6"armed Leanders?

I made another mistake. I should have said DIDOs but I was thinking Leanders as in how could you modify what was already at hand to serve longer? Need to watch that.

The Dido's would have been a good fit in the RAN as well but with 4.5" in place of the 5.25" of the original design with the weight saved used for torpedoes and Bofors. Alternatively, if they were specifically redesigned for the RAN additional 4.5" mounts could be worked in for a total of 6 twins mounts.

Eight guns is good enough. We went down that road with the Atlantas. Its not the amount of fire you throw into the air. Its the amount of AIMED fire. You need the local gun directors more than you need mounts. The space you have you need for another AAA main director radar mount so you can engage two targets simultaneously instead of one..

Failing that, the modified Fiji class, 4 of those with their adequate AAA and 6'/45s as ASuSh guns should be a good fit for what I envision for a 1950's fleet-especially as I see the Fijis receiving a Terrier refit around 1958. (You can fit the Ikara where the crane and seaplane would go and the after mast can be rebuilt to take a Terrier Fire Control System)

If we went for Dido's armed with 4.5" we would still need something with bigger guns which means we are back to the Crown Colony and Minotaur classes. This would actually work out well as the Didos have significantly smaller crews than the larger cruisers so if the RAN went 50/50 Didio's and Minotaurs there would be an overall crew saving of about 400. The Dido's could be rebuilt with Tartar and the Minotaurs with Terrier, the fit Giuseppe Garibaldi received in her 1957 to 61 modernization is a good guide for what could be done.

Let's look at the Dido as a refit.

You lose the C mount to save topweight for the radars. X and Y mounts go to install a Terrier/Tartar? The hull is not deep enough aft so you have to build a deck house to house the rotary magazine above your shaft tunnels (that is about how deep you go into the hull; its a roughly 5 meter + long missile, Tartar is. You also have to tear out the hoists and magazines and reframe aft of the after pole mast.. Ugh, expensive. Modified Fiji is better.

On the plus side you just might be able to fit an Ikara amidships between the funnels. I wouldn't, but you might consider it.

Gives you a very big destroyer.

Herald

Quote Reply

Volkodav 7/5/2009 5:15:11 AM

Let's look at the Dido as a refit.

On the plus side you just might be able to fit an Ikara amidships between the funnels. I wouldn't, but you might consider it.

Gives you a very big destroyer.

Steel is cheap and air is free, in this case the steel was free and with a crew of 480 a Dido's operating costs would have been much lower than a 10-15000 CL. The edge a 4.5" armed Dido would have had over a large, late war destroyers is their command facilities as well as their greater self maintenance and support capacity. They would have made ideal escort or strike group leaders.

As for modernisation, the Mk.13 launcher with its concentric ring magazine, was designed to fit into the same space as a Mk. 42 5" gun so should have been able to fit the barbett originally designed for the much larger 5.25". The bridge superstructure could be cut down and remodelled with the tripod masts being replaced with lattice masts, or even better build macks to replace the masts and funnels. This would leave space and weight to install a Mk. 13 in either B or C(Q?) and X turrets while leaving her with 2 or 3 turrets, either 4.5" for an earlier modified Dido, or possibly Mk.42 5" to replace the 5.25" if she still had them at the time of her missile conversion. The 5" gun variant could be with paired AN/SPG-51 and AN/SPG-53 on top of the new bridge and another of each on a new deckhouse built between the aft funnel (or mack) and the aft Mk.13 (X position). Later the AN/SPG-53 could be upgraded to the C model to provide additional fire control channels.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us