Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
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.
 
http://rasputin.physics.uiuc.edu/%7Ewiringa/Ships/Period3/GreatBritain/Cruisers/pix/Uganda3.jpg" height="358" width="720" /> 
.      
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
 
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)
 
 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
 
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.

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.

http://rasputin.physics.uiuc.edu/%7Ewiringa/Ships/Period3/GreatBritain/Cruisers/pix/Dido.jpg" width="720" height="232" />

 

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.

http://rasputin.physics.uiuc.edu/~wiringa/Ships/Period3/GreatBritain/Cruisers/pix/Dido.jpg" width="720" height="232" />

 

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.
 
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

Herald12345       7/5/2009 12:03:02 PM

Let's look at the Dido as a refit.


http://rasputin.physics.uiuc.edu/%7Ewiringa/Ships/Period3/GreatBritain/Cruisers/pix/Dido.jpg" width="720" height="232" />


 


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
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics