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
Volkodav    Also from Ship Bucket, what the RN almost got instead of the County   1/10/2010 6:55:50 AM
GBBBGW96A_Hood1.gif GB BB GW96A_ Hood 1.gif picture by shipbuckethttp://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/Never%20build%20designs/GBBBGW96A_Hood1.gif?t=1263124254" galleryimg="no" />
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       1/11/2010 5:33:23 AM

[HMS Hood]

While you are dreaming, how about a modernised evolved Tiger class with Sea Dart or Tartar in B, Sea Wolf in Place of the midships Sea Cat and Gas Turbines replacing the steam plant?
 
Not sure if their flight deck was one spot or two, but possibly look at that as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/11/2010 8:01:25 AM
While you are dreaming, how about a modernised evolved Tiger class with Sea Dart or Tartar in B, Sea Wolf in Place of the midships Sea Cat and Gas Turbines replacing the steam plant?
 
Not sure if their flight deck was one spot or two, but possibly look at that as well
 
This was one of a series of designs with a number of objectives, to get an area air defence missile to sea and to provide an anti Sverdlov capability through the pair of Mk26 6" forward.  The design included the facility to replace the two midrift 3" twins with Tartar.
 
End of the day the RN was presented with the choice of 4 cruisers or 8 Counties and chose to go with the CLG instead of the CAG, numbers were more important than individual capability.  The issues the RN encountered with the auto 6" mounts on the Tigers vindicated the choice but boy where those cruisers good looking ships.  Start looking at some of the Terrier, Talos, Thunderbird armed variants the RN considered it the CAG looks even better.
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       1/11/2010 9:24:44 AM
Even with that massive boxy hanger and the raised flight decks after their 1970's modernisation the tigers look way better then the US CLG conversions.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/12/2010 4:54:00 AM
Aparently both Tiger and Blake, along with Bulwark, were surveyed for reactivation for operations in the Falklands War.  The Tigers were in good condition and reactivation was started but stopped when it clear they couldn't be finished in time while Bulwark wasn't in good enough shape.
 
Its too bad the RN didn't do a CG conversion on all three Tigers instead of the Helo conversion, a Mk13 Tartar would have fitted nicely inplace of B turret, and covered the ASW requirement through conversion of the remaining Centaurs into ASW Helo carriers.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       1/30/2010 9:28:30 AM
Found out some more info on the armament of the Tigers.  The 6" guns were no where near as unreliable as I had believed and when used for NGS with a derated rate of fire they were quite reliable.  Also the 3" twins were extremely reliable and would have been absolutely lethal to low flying attack aircraft (such as Argentinean Skyhawks).
 
Many in the RN were keen to get the Tigers back in service for the Falklands due to their 6" guns, close in airdefence, command facilities and survivability, some may well have wished they had bought 4 CAG's instead of the 8 CLG's. 
 
They could have been the RN's version of the reactivated Iowas but with an area air defence capability thrown in.  Although Sea Slug would have been usless by the early 80's the RN had always intended to fit Tartar inplace of the forward pair of 3" twins which in turn could have been upgraded to fire Standard.  Sea slug could have been removed and replaced with more extensive helo facilities than the Tigers.  Another possibility is the RN looked at both Terrier and Talos inplace of Sea Slug for the design either of which would have still been effective in 1982.
 
Now swing this to the RANs needs in the 1960's, Menzies had already announced the FAA would cease fixed wing ops and Melbourne would become an ASW helo carrier.  Our first Adams class DDGs were ordered in 1962 and Ordzhonikidze had been transferred to Indonesia as KRI Irian creating concern that the Adams would not be up to the job and the RAN lodged formal proposals to acquire a strike carrier equipped with Phantoms, Trackers and Tracers.
 
 The RAN didn't get their strike carrier but they did get Skyhawks and Trackers for a refitted Melbourne.  All three Perths saw service in the gun line off Vietnam but there was lingering concern that they would have been stretched to counter Indonesias fleet including a cruiser (a second on order) destroyers and subs.
 
I wonder how 3 CAG with Talos (or Terrier), Tartar, 2 x 6" twin and 2 x 3" twin, a Type 984 3D radar would have gone inplace of the 3 Adams.  Convert Melbourne to an ASW helo carrier with Sydney in reserve to cover her refits, retire the Darings and Battles while increasing overall numbers by building a class of light frigates (eg. the Vosper Mk 5) to back up the River class DEs.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       2/15/2010 5:10:31 AM

Found out some more info on the armament of the Tigers.  The 6" guns were no where near as unreliable as I had believed and when used for NGS with a derated rate of fire they were quite reliable.  Also the 3" twins were extremely reliable and would have been absolutely lethal to low flying attack aircraft (such as Argentinean Skyhawks).

I have my doubts about that. The slew elevate rate could lay track on a crossing Scooter at 500+ knots (900+k/h) at 330  feet (100 meters) altitude for 30 seconds? The Skyhawk was FAST on the deck, even with slicks.

Many in the RN were keen to get the Tigers back in service for the Falklands due to their 6" guns, close in airdefence, command facilities and survivability, some may well have wished they had bought 4 CAG's instead of the 8 CLG's. 

Those were good reasons.

They could have been the RN's version of the reactivated Iowas but with an area air defence capability thrown in.  Although Sea Slug would have been useless by the early 80's the RN had always intended to fit Tartar in place of the forward pair of 3" twins which in turn could have been upgraded to fire Standard.  Sea slug could have been removed and replaced with more extensive helo facilities than the Tigers.  Another possibility is the RN looked at both Terrier and Talos inplace of Sea Slug for the design either of which would have still been effective in 1982.

Tartar probably wouldn't fit there easily. It was a small missile, but consider: at 4.6 meters long and 1/3 a meter in diameter, how big  do you think the launcher and magazine actually is?  The missile was also a horizon defense chase missile. Was there something British better at the time? Not really. The loss of a 6' turret was worth it?
 . 
Now swing this to the RANs needs in the 1960's, Menzies had already announced the FAA would cease fixed wing ops and Melbourne would become an ASW helo carrier.  Our first Adams class DDGs were ordered in 1962 and Ordzhonikidze had been transferred to Indonesia as KRI Irian creating concern that the Adams would not be up to the job and the RAN lodged formal proposals to acquire a strike carrier equipped with Phantoms, Trackers and Tracers.

The Charles Adams class were  built to use Tartars as anti-ship as well as anti-aircraft weapons.  

 The RAN didn't get their strike carrier but they did get Skyhawks and Trackers for a refitted Melbourne.  All three Perths saw service in the gun line off Vietnam but there was lingering concern that they would have been stretched to counter Indonesias fleet including a cruiser (a second on order) destroyers and subs.

Didn't this get covered already in  the Lightning thread?
 
I wonder how 3 CAG with Talos (or Terrier), Tartar, 2 x 6" twin and 2 x 3" twin, a Type 984 3D radar would have gone in place of the 3 Adams.  Convert Melbourne to an ASW helo carrier with Sydney in reserve to cover her refits, retire the Darings and Battles while increasing overall numbers by building a class of light frigates (eg. the Vosper Mk 5) to back up the River class DEs.

The Tigers were technically light cruisers. They were CLG(H)s. 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/17/2010 5:14:38 AM
Fair call but I was referring to the four 18000+ ton guided missile cruisers the UK came very close to ordering in 1957, not the later Tiger helo conversions.
 
There were numerous variations of the GW Cruiser design developed between 1953 and 1957.  Most were armed with Seaslug, but variants with Blood Hound and Talos were also developed.  The designs were fairly consistent in resembling enlarged Tigers with the missiles aft and two twin Mk26 6" forward.  One or two 3"/70 twins were mounted on each beam, supplemented by twin or sextuple Bofors 40/L70s.  Each gun mount had its own remote director, GMS had two large directors and the ship had a very comprehensive sensor fit topped off with a type 984 3D radar above the forward superstructure and CDS.
 
The ships were designed with the intention of replacing the midrift pair of twin 3" with Tartar at a latter date, so plenty of internal space was reserved around the 3" mounts.  The set up would likely have been similar to that of the Albany Class CG's with a Mk 11 GMLS on each beam, however if the system was fitted later Mk13 or Mk22 could have been used instead.
 
Had they been built these ships would have been unique in being the only purpose designed gun and missile cruisers to serve with any navy.  Their true value would likely not be realised until the 1980's when their 6" guns, close in guns, tiered air defence missile systems, command and control facilities and armour protection would have been invaluable in retaking the Falklands.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       2/18/2010 2:34:52 AM

Fair call but I was referring to the four 18000+ ton guided missile cruisers the UK came very close to ordering in 1957, not the later Tiger helo conversions.

Oh I see. 

There were numerous variations of the GW Cruiser design developed between 1953 and 1957.  Most were armed with Seaslug, but variants with Blood Hound and Talos were also developed.  The designs were fairly consistent in resembling enlarged Tigers with the missiles aft and two twin Mk26 6" forward.  One or two 3"/70 twins were mounted on each beam, supplemented by twin or sextuple Bofors 40/L70s.  Each gun mount had its own remote director, GMS had two large directors and the ship had a very comprehensive sensor fit topped off with a type 984 3D radar above the forward superstructure and CDS.

 Ahuh. Radar mounted the wrong way?

The ships were designed with the intention of replacing the midrift pair of twin 3" with Tartar at a latter date, so plenty of internal space was reserved around the 3" mounts.  The set up would likely have been similar to that of the Albany Class CG's with a Mk 11 GMLS on each beam, however if the system was fitted later Mk13 or Mk22 could have been used instead.

The Albanys were not that great. 

Had they been built these ships would have been unique in being the only purpose designed gun and missile cruisers to serve with any navy.  Their true value would likely not be realised until the 1980's when their 6" guns, close in guns, tiered air defence missile systems, command and control facilities and armour protection would have been invaluable in retaking the Falklands.
 
It would  have been expensive, if they guessed wrong.


This is what you suggested in your illustration.
 
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k279/shipbucket/Never%20build%20designs/GBBBGW96A_Hood1.gif?t=1263124254" width="1550" height="450" /> 
 I took that idea and did this with 1950s tech into the late 1960s.
 
 http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/9137/britishlionclass2.jpg" />
 
      Note that I assumed that the British would do the correct thing and either build or buy a missile that would fit a Terrier/Tartar twin arm style launcher?
 
        Sea Wolf was never developed as soon as it needed to be because of the 3'/70 mistake. Sea-Cat wasn't fast enough. Use a heatseeker head and an optical tracker mount to point and acquire.
 
Now the radars and missiles make sense for a carrier bodyguard ship. How many can the RAN afford? ONE, maybe two.  
 
Based on THIS example of what is suggested , it seems that the Perths were a very well thought out choice. The RAN received 2/3 of the firepower on 1/4 the displacement and probably 1/2 the cost. Would a pair of Adams class destroyers have done better at the Falklands as opposed to the two Type 42s that were hit? Maybe. The Perths (Adams) were designed as air warfare bodyguard ships.
 
H.
   
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/20/2010 9:28:29 PM
The Adams would have done very well as Argentina had nowhere near the Intel on them and their capabilities as they had on the batch 1 Sheffields courtesy of the pair the UK sold them in the 70's.  HMS Exeter, a batch 2 Sheffield with an improved radar fit performed extremely well.
 
I like the mods you did to the cruiser, but looking at the strategic thinking at the time they would likely have been completed as gun / missile carrier escorts inplace of the Counties.  Their helo conversion would have been delayed until the arrival of the Bristol and Sheffields in the mid 70's and hopefully, due to their size and expense their mid life upgrades in the 70's would have included Seadart, Seawolf and possibably a number of GDM-A or C 35mm twin mounts, as well as the upgrade / replacement of many radars and directors.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics