The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 16, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Alternate Post WWII RAN: Carriers
Volkodav    7/2/2009 7:27:00 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?

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
Herald12345       7/5/2009 12:03:02 PM

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.
 
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.
 
Operating costs are not, I would argue..
. 
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.
 
Intererstimg.  While I appreciate the choice of US illumination radars: these missile radars were not ideal for fighter vector direction (being shorter ranged and not as target discriminating at long range) while the British 3 D air volume search radars were. Detection threshhold matters.  British radar Type 965 was superior to USN SPS-6 in this regard.  Mating it with Yellow River Type 83 still gives you a SARH RTG (1960) before the SPG-51D becomes SARH capable (around 1964-1966)  
.
 
 Let's look at the 5.25'/50 
 
 
 
Not the same I think. Volume appears to be different as you morph into the hoist..
 



Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/6/2009 8:12:23 AM
Intererstimg.  While I appreciate the choice of US illumination radars: these missile radars were not ideal for fighter vector direction (being shorter ranged and not as target discriminating at long range) while the British 3 D air volume search radars were. Detection threshhold matters.  British radar Type 965 was superior to USN SPS-6 in this regard.  Mating it with Yellow River Type 83 still gives you a SARH RTG (1960) before the SPG-51D becomes SARH capable (around 1964-1966)  
 
Whoops, left the search radars out but space and weight for a decent 3D radar was one of the reasons why I suggested macks to replace the separate masts and funnels.
 
I see a Dido missile cruiser conversion as being a task force flagship not just a large destroyer and carrier escort. Yes its more expensive to operate than a destroyer but it is double ended, carries better radars, is armoured, retains a useful number of guns and above all has those vital command and control spaces and flag staff. It is also cheaper to operate and has a smaller crew than a Minotaur. I am easy on the radar fit and would had been quite happy with Type 984 3D and Yellow River directors.
 
Oh by the way I was suggesting the 5"/54 Mk 42 Automatic DP mount, as used on the Adams class, as a replacement for the 5.25" DP's of an unmodified Dido as part of a missile cruiser conversion in the late 50's early 60's. Had the RAN acquired 4.5" armed Dido's rather than the 5.25" versions there would have been no point fitting Mk 42's.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/6/2009 5:28:10 PM

Intererstimg.  While I appreciate the choice of US illumination radars: these missile radars were not ideal for fighter vector direction (being shorter ranged and not as target discriminating at long range) while the British 3 D air volume search radars were. Detection threshhold matters.  British radar Type 965 was superior to USN SPS-6 in this regard.  Mating it with Yellow River Type 83 still gives you a SARH RTG (1960) before the SPG-51D becomes SARH capable (around 1964-1966)  

Whoops, left the search radars out but space and weight for a decent 3D radar was one of the reasons why I suggested macks to replace the separate masts and funnels.

Can it carry the weight of a 17 tonne radar?

I see a Dido missile cruiser conversion as being a task force flagship not just a large destroyer and carrier escort. Yes its more expensive to operate than a destroyer but it is double ended, carries better radars, is armoured, retains a useful number of guns and above all has those vital command and control spaces and flag staff. It is also cheaper to operate and has a smaller crew than a Minotaur. I am easy on the radar fit and would had been quite happy with Type 984 3D and Yellow River directors.

Yes but I posited a "short" Fiji as the free cruiser offered.  Minotaurs come later and definitely are manpower hogs..

Oh by the way I was suggesting the 5"/54 Mk 42 Automatic DP mount, as used on the Adams class, as a replacement for the 5.25" DP's of an unmodified Dido as part of a missile cruiser conversion in the late 50's early 60's. Had the RAN acquired 4.5" armed Dido's rather than the 5.25" versions there would have been no point fitting Mk 42's.
 
I thought we were discussing the 5'/38 TWIN which the Terrier/ Tartar WAS designed to replace?  The Mark 42 was similar in size and volume. below deck. She has a lot of hoist machimery.
 
My error again.


 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       7/6/2009 10:55:45 PM
I thought we were discussing the 5'/38 TWIN which the Terrier/ Tartar WAS designed to replace?  The Mark 42 was similar in size and volume. below deck. She has a lot of hoist machimery.
 
Well I've learnt something, I always thought the Tartar was designed to replace the Mk42, but now come to think of it I have read about proposed Terrier/Tartar Gearing conversions so the 5"/38 twin replacement makes sense. I suppose I have never put two and two in this case.
 
I think the thing with missiles and radars is that they were volume, rather than weight restricted making cruisers a better conversion option than destroyers.
 
A possible way ahead could have been to forget about expensive modernisations for any of the gift fleet, with the posible exception of a Terrier or Tartar missile conversion of the Minotaurs, and to go for new build ships from the late 50's onwards. Even with the cruiser, assuming they are converted to double ended ships with no 6" guns retained, would it not have been more sensible to go for new build Counties or Leahy's in the early 60's?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/7/2009 1:40:25 AM



I thought we were discussing the 5'/38 TWIN which the Terrier/ Tartar WAS designed to replace?  The Mark 42 was similar in size and volume. below deck. She has a lot of hoist machimery.




 

Well I've learnt something, I always thought the Tartar was designed to replace the Mk42, but now come to think of it I have read about proposed Terrier/Tartar Gearing conversions so the 5"/38 twin replacement makes sense. I suppose I have never put two and two in this case.

 

I think the thing with missiles and radars is that they were volume, rather than weight restricted making cruisers a better conversion option than destroyers.

 

A possible way ahead could have been to forget about expensive modernisations for any of the gift fleet, with the possible exception of a Terrier or Tartar missile conversion of the Minotaurs, and to go for new build ships from the late 50's onwards. Even with the cruiser, assuming they are converted to double ended ships with no 6" guns retained, would it not have been more sensible to go for new build Counties or Leahy's in the early 60's?


I honestly don't know. The Counties are very expensive. If at all possible, I would take at least some of the gift ships and make the Ikara, helo conversions on the basis of in-country work, wherever possible. The Counties I don't see Britain doing a one off or three off major design refit. The RN were committed to Sea Slug. Australia may have to do the Terrier conversions in her own yards or send the Counties she buys, to the US for the missile conversion work? The Fijis and Minotaurs might have to go to US yards for the magazine and launcher work as well, but here for omce I don't see why an Australian yard that could build Darings from the keel up could not do the work locally? 
 
What I'm saying, is that you have to look at your gift ships and see what you can afford. Its glib for me to say that youn can do this and do that, but you have to understand that your "gift fleet" now cuts into the RAN budget in ways that changes what I originally understood to be the costs.
 
This now resembles the USN GUPPY  program in some strange ways where you take a fleet of WW II ships and try to bring them up into the cold war standard. The British ships, because of their good surface ship hull volume design in the named classes we discuss, have enough internal working volume to make these changes work, I think.
 
  .
   
  .
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       12/30/2009 11:19:04 AM
Did some reading over the break and found a little jem that suggested when the RAN was shopping for DDG's they were really looking for a Sverdlov killer. 
They looked at the County, Adams and Brook (FFG 1) designs, they appearently prefered the County with its COSAG machinery, superior CIC and accomodation fit, helicopter hanger compatability with a number of existing RAN systems and its design heritage that traced back to the Darings, which would have made local construction easier.
 
How ever the prefered missile system was Tartar due to its automated launcher operation hence high rate of fire to better deal with a Sverdlov and the prefered launcher was the Mk-13 due to the 40 rounds it held as opposed to the 16 in the Mk-22 (Brook). 
 
The Brits were asked to rejig the County with a Mk-13 and Tartar in place of Sea Slug, they refused to do so leaving the Adams as the only viable option.
 
The Adams design was played with to a degree to try and work in a helicopter but the price was too high in that it would have cost one of the Mk-42's and half the steam plant.
 
Interestingly I have read that a number of the Super Daring design evolutions, that lead to the County, were actually armed with Tartar inplace of Sea Slug resulting in a significantly smaller cheaper hull once that ludicrus magazine had been removed.
 
One of these could have been used for the RAN but I still believe that the best option would have been to raise and convert the fantail into a flight deck (possibly with an Ikara mag worked in underneath / launcher in cutouts extreme aft or further forward Port / Starboard) and  replace the original flight deck and missile prep area with a new twin hanger.  The Mk-13 would then be installed forward of the hanger in place of the original hanger with the mag fitting in the aft section of the original Sea Slug mag superfiring over the hanger in a configuration similar to the Tromp, Audace and Cassard.  This would leave significant volume in what was the forward section of the Sea Slug hanger to be used for accomdation, stowage and maybe even additional command and control and maintenance spaces making the County DLG into a true CLG.
 
Expensive but it could have been done and I would suggest that through the life of the ships the common to the rest of the RAN guns, steam plant, and other systems would have resulted in very major savings in training, logistics and support that had to be duplicated for the Adams and their US systems.  They may well have worked out cheaper to own than the Adams.  Further, had they been built locally an extra hull could have been ordered as a replacement for the lost Voyager, instead of the final two Rivers that were built and another pair to replace the remaining Daring instead of the still born DDL and then FFG-07 (OHP) that were ordered.
 
With 6 Tartar County DLG / CLG's the RAN could have avoided the scope creep on the DDL (Tartar etc.) and built the large class of light destroyers as oringinally intended which would have negated the need to blow resourses on the FFG's, Attack Class Patrol Boats and subsequently the ANZAC's.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/1/2010 6:46:10 AM

This story is about the best advertisement for MOTS purchasing that I have yet read. The DDG's were excellent ships that served us well over the course of more than 30 years, including in during a number of operational deployments, and didn't require much Australianisation beyond the addition of the Ikara's. I don't see that bastardised Counties would have added much to the RAN's overall capability, but would have exposed us to development risks which were clearly unnecessary given that the DDG's could do the job we needed them for.

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/1/2010 9:29:48 AM
The DDG's were perfectly good enough for the SEATO missions they were ordered for and they turned out to be good enough for the service lives they led in reality.  During the early to mid 60's, when Indonesia was flexing their muscles and deploying a lot of Soviet gear, the DDG's were no where near enough, which is why the RAN were looking at replacement carriers with F-4B, Tracker and Tracer.

What happened was we got lucky and our strategic environment became more benign.  This was cutesy of Suharto seizing power in Indonesia.  Up until that point we were sh!tting ourselves, increasing defence spending, expanding the army, looking towards a nuclear weapon program, trying to buy all sorts of gear to catch up with what Indonesia had been gifted, and perhaps above all we committed to Vietnam in the hope of gaining favour, hence a concrete commitment to our defence from the US.
 
The powers that be didn't have crystal balls and were horrified when Indonesia began to assert themselves and the Kennedy administration appeared to be favouring them over us as they attempted to sway them away from Soviet influence.  Basically by the 60's we had lost our regional superiority as well as faith in the SEATO and ANZUS arrangements with the UK and US.  Every defence assumption up to that point had been wrong and there was neither the time nore the money to rectify the situation.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/1/2010 8:46:38 PM

The DDG's were perfectly good enough for the SEATO missions they were ordered for and they turned out to be good enough for the service lives they led in reality.  During the early to mid 60's, when Indonesia was flexing their muscles and deploying a lot of Soviet gear, the DDG's were no where near enough, which is why the RAN were looking at replacement carriers with F-4B, Tracker and Tracer.

What happened was we got lucky and our strategic environment became more benign.  This was cutesy of Suharto seizing power in Indonesia.  Up until that point we were sh!tting ourselves, increasing defence spending, expanding the army, looking towards a nuclear weapon program, trying to buy all sorts of gear to catch up with what Indonesia had been gifted, and perhaps above all we committed to Vietnam in the hope of gaining favour, hence a concrete commitment to our defence from the US.

 The powers that be didn't have crystal balls and were horrified when Indonesia began to assert themselves and the Kennedy administration appeared to be favouring them over us as they attempted to sway them away from Soviet influence.  Basically by the 60's we had lost our regional superiority as well as faith in the SEATO and ANZUS arrangements with the UK and US.  Every defence assumption up to that point had been wrong and there was neither the time nore the money to rectify the situation.


Yes but had things panned out for the worst with Indonesia, requiring us to get a bigger surface fleet, half a dozen bastardised Counties would have made zero difference to the outcome as compared to half a dozen largely OTS DDGs. Additonally the real possiblity would have been that the bastardised Counties would have been late and more expensive due to development delays, leaving us even worse off in the instance of a confrontation and reducing our financial capacity to acquire other needed kit.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/3/2010 10:42:58 AM
Wessex HAS 31, the Australian version of the RN FAA HAS 3, was the most effective ASW system in service with the ADF at the time.  It was so capable, and the threat from Indonesia and China's Russian supplied submarines seen to be so great, that the RAN seriously considered having the Perth (RAN Adams) Class built with hangers and flight deck in place of the aft Mk 42 5" gun.  This change, which would also have required half the boilers to be removed (cutting max speed to about 28kt), as well as being very expensive, was seen as too great a compromise and dropped.
 
The County on the other hand already had facilities for a HAS 3 while a Tartar County, with the space and weight saved by the deletion of Seaslug, could have easily been fitted to hanger and operate 2 or more HAS31's from a superior fantail arrangement.  This is while retaining their full medium gun armament, Seacat secondary missile armament and superior sensor, not to forget command and control fit.
 
The County was superior to the Adams in almost every way, it's only failing being the UK failed to improve Seaslug to the same degree as the US improved Tartar and then Standard.  Replace Seaslug with Tartar and make effective use of the saved space and weight and you would have an extremely capable multi role platform that could serve as the core of a surface action group, ASW group as well as a very effective carrier escort.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/3/2010 9:08:28 PM
We had other ASW systems at the time, Ikara, P-2's, Trackers, Sea Kings etc, which were capable of dealing with the threat. The one or two extra choppers per task group on the Counties would have made no apprecable differance. Getting our area air defence capability late and overpriced because we insisted on Australianising them might have.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/4/2010 12:01:24 AM
We had other ASW systems at the time, Ikara, P-2's, Trackers, Sea Kings etc, which were capable of dealing with the threat. The one or two extra choppers per task group on the Counties would have made no apprecable differance. Getting our area air defence capability late and overpriced because we insisted on Australianising them might have.
 
Ikara was most effective when used in conjunction with a dipping sonar helo.
 
P-2 was a land based MPA that had it's own missions to conduct and were progressively replaced with the P-3 because they were not able to cope with the threat.
 
The Tracker didn't enter service until 1967 as a replacement for the Gannet.
 
The Seakings entered service in 1976 as replacements for the Wessex in the ASW role.
 
When Melbourne was unavailable the fleet had no organic ASW capability out side the effective detection range of the RAN hull mounted sonar, i.e. only about 5 Nm on average! (Wessex could be operated from Sydney and were used to provide ASW cover for the South Vietnam transport missions)
 
All together having a pair of Wessex on each of our air defence ships would have made a massive difference to the RAN's ASW capability during the 1960's.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/4/2010 12:23:56 AM
Ikara was most effective when used in conjunction with a dipping sonar helo.
 
or air MPA launched sonarbouys.
 
 P-2 was a land based MPA that had it's own missions to conduct and were progressively replaced with the P-3 because they were not able to cope with the threat.
 
The MPA's operated co-operatively with the RAN then as they do now, that is what they are for.
 
The Tracker didn't enter service until 1967 as a replacement for the Gannet.
 
The Seakings entered service in 1976 as replacements for the Wessex in the ASW role.
 
Ok then, for a few years we would have been operating Gannets and Wessex rather than Trackers and Sea Kings. So what, they still provide a bigger capability than a couple of extra Wessex, assuming that the delivery from the Australianised ships weren't fucked up as they usually are, leaving us without area air cover or your one or two extra helecopters.
 
 When Melbourne was unavailable the fleet had no organic ASW capability out side the effective detection range of the RAN hull mounted sonar, i.e. only about 5 Nm on average! (Wessex could be operated from Sydney and were used to provide ASW cover for the South Vietnam transport missions)
 
 See post about MPA. We wouldn't have been operating without either one of those operating above or the Melbourne. Not that a 5nm detection range is bad against submarine attack in those days.
 
All together having a pair of Wessex on each of our air defence ships would have made a massive difference to the RAN's ASW capability during the 1960's
 
If they got delivered in working order order in the 1960's.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain       1/4/2010 12:46:26 AM
Interesting link on Russian torpedos. Note that the homing torpedos  from the 1960's only have a homing range of about 800 metres, well within the 5km range of the hull mounted sonars.

link
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/4/2010 6:08:14 AM
Conqueror used unguided Mk 8 torpedoes to sink General Belgrano in 1982. 
 
Dunking Sonar Helos were used as replacements for ships in the ASW screen with each helo able to substitute for a couple of frigates or DE's by dunking then moving on and dunking again.  Thus a largish ship with a couple of ASW helos could take the place of a squadron (3 to 4) ASW escorts.  This was the thinking behind the Invincible class, which was initially designed to embark a Sqn of 9 ASW Helo's and an area defence missile system.
 
Deployment by the RAN of a DLG or CG with 2 or more large helicopters would have permitted a reduction in the number of DE's ordered by the RAN, i.e. the final pair, Swan and Torrens that were ordered as replacements for the lost DD Voyager.
 
Take this a step further and cancel the expensive and not very effective modernisation of Vampire and Vendetta as well as the final  two DE's to pay for the extra cost of the Counties v the Adams and also a fourth hull.  The DDL project could now proceed along its original intent of being more a patrol frigate or sloop than a defacto AWD allowing the planned ten hulls to be built.  The original four DE's would be replaced during the 80's with a GP frigate design, perhaps more in line with the evolved DDL that was cancelled in favor of the OHP FFG's.  This would set the Counties to be replaced with either a Ticonderoga or Burke during the 90's.
 
Roll this all in with an SCB27 Modernised Essex flying Trackers and Phantoms and we could have taken responsibility for our own defence and declined to commit fully to Vietnam, there by saving more than enough money to pay for our new fleet.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy