RAN FAA 1950-2020 Carrier Operations - Real & Propossed

[Thorvic]

OK as part of Aussierama I'm looking to determine what was actually proposed for use by the Royal Australian Navy and its Fleet Air Arm.
This is not so much an Alt-History but a research topic to determine the real possibilities for modelling, artwork or stories. I will start a separate tread for the pure whiffery so the two remain in the correct context

We know the RAN carrier policy started with adopting a former Royal Navy light fleet carrier which formed the basis of the post war Navy where the smaller carriers were more flexible and efficient to man and run than the larger war weary fleet carriers. A colossus class carrier was borrowed whilst the newer later Light Fleets of the Majestic class were fitted out and made ready for use. HMS Majestic became HMAS Sydney and was ran as a conventional axial deck carrier with the an airgroup of Sea Fury & Firefly prop aircraft, a second Majestic class HMAS Melbourne was modified with the new technology of the period to enable it operate the new range of modern naval aircraft Sea venom, Gannet and helicopters.

Now not sure if during this 50's period is any other aircraft were proposed or considered by the RAN as their were of course a new range of USN jets popping up every couple of years and the Jet aircraft technology leapt forward in capabilities. I do recall seeing somewhere that the French had proposed the Dassault Etendard for the RAN but cant recall if this was seen as a Sea Venom replacement, or was a 70's idea to replace the Skyhawks. I also recall seeing that a naval Northrop N-156 F-5 variant was offered to the RAN

By 1964 the Melbourne was beginning to loose ground to the advances in Naval technology and a requirement was done to see if the Melbourne could either be replaced by a larger more capable carrier, or failing that be refitted to operate a modest airgroup of more modern Naval types along with the associated hardware & comms of a modern 60's vessel.

They did look a commissioning the US to build them a new conventional fleet carrier possibly something akin to a 60's version of the CVV, they also serious considered signing up to join the UK CVA-01 program to get their own modern carrier. However the preferred solution was to approach the US to have one of their surplus WWII Essex Class carriers converted to a similar standard to the recently completed angled deck Essex carrier USS Oriskanny. The Airgroup was going to consist of S-2 Trackers, a small number of E-1 Tracer AEW and a strike fighter wing of F-4B Phantoms. Types such as the Crusader and Sea Vixen were seen as too old and unsuitable for the new carrier which was to form the basis of the 1970s RAN

Now although the RAN ended up with Trackers operating off the refitted Melbourne along with a token flight of Skyhawks in the Fighter/Strike role, it would have been interesting as to how they would have dealt with the F-4B being unsuitable for the smaller Essex class fleet carriers as the USN had discovered (in early 1964 the Phantom was still seen as the direct replacement for Naval Interceptors flying off fleet and super carriers with a mach 2 performance and a long range missile based armament ). Would the RAN settle for Crusaders as the French had done, or would they order the UK F-4K variant configured to just about operate off their larger fleet carriers, or would RAN go for the F-4HL or F-4 FVS which were major redesigns to improve operations from smaller carriers ?

In this timeframe we also have the UK's change in Policy regarding East of Suez and the Aircraft Carriers. One aspect of this was that the modernised carriers like Victorious & Hermes were offered to the RAN as a direct replacement for Melbourne. On the other hand had the RN officially stayed in the carrier game and a new carrier was built then the UK may well have pushed the switch from the F-4K to the F-4HL or even the F-4FVS. Alternately the RN would likely to have pushed for the Carrier Interceptor version of the AFVG alongside the french  Marine Nationalein which case there would have been a modern fleet carrier capable VG Interceptor & Strike aircraft that would have replaced the Phantom F-4k, Crusader, Buccaneer & Etendard. This would have had a strong appeal to the RAN for the 70's era.

The french influence may have had more effect in the 70's had the Marine Nationale had more pull, The Jaguar M was cancelled in favour of the Super Etendard, whilst the Navalised Mirage F1M never got off the drawing boards. Any of these three Aircraft could have been possible on the Melbourne or possibly the Angled deck Essex had it been procurred or failing that one of the ex-RN carriers.

When it came round to study a Melbourne replacement for the 1980's a new Fleet carrier was unaffordable, so like other navies the RAN looked at the STOVL solution, with smaller carriers carrying harrier type airgroups and ASW helicopters. The Sea Control Ship  built as the Principe Des Austres by Spain or the Italian Garibaldi class were considered along with the UK Invincible class and new US built STOVL carrier based upon the Iwo Jima LPH design. The RAN selected the the Invincible when the offer become too good to refuse as the UK were to make the carrier redundant under the 1981 defence review.

One area to consider in the 70's was the RAN switching to STOVL whilst still using Melbourne, they could have replaced the Skyhawks with Harrier, Sea Harrier or possibly the US STOVL aircraft had they come to pass such as the Convair 200, AV-16, Boeing model 279 etc

However in 1982 the Falkland war disrupted those plans, the UK could not afford to give up an Invincible class just yet and offered the Hermes instead or as a stopgap till a new invincible class could be built. The RAN refused this and eventually decided to scrap Melbourne and their carrier capability. Its come to light that in 1982 following the withdrawal of the Invincible sale, the RAN did look afresh at the Harrier class designs available, including the new cheaper Versatile designs using Civilian designed hulls, they also looked at converting a merchant ship to the role as had been utilised by the UK for the recent war.

The interesting snippet was rather than go down the STOVL route they could make use of their existing aircraft including the recently in service RAAF F-18A Hornet by either seeing if France could build them a conventionally powered Charles De gaulle Design, or the US would build a revised Tarawa/Wasp class ship configured as a conventional carrier, with a larger hanger, no dock !
Whilst the fixed wing carrier capable RAN has now long since gone, its interesting to note that the new RAN Canberra class LHD's are built and fitted with a Ski-Jump. Now the RAAF are procurring the F-35A to replace their F-18 Hornet aircraft and theres is no requirement for the STOVL F-35B version at present, they will probably assess and reassess the additional purchase of the type once the ships and the aircraft have entered service.

Just some thoughts on the RAN carrier aviation based upon what happened, what they got together with some of their proposals and how choices made elsewhere may well have effected their own options. Please feel free to expand upon this if you have any other information on these or other proposals or to discuss the impact of these choices.

Can i please add that if an idea is pure whiffery based upon fantasy or wishful thinking then use the sister thread to this one where the timelines and possibilities are so much greater.

Cheers

Geoff B

[rickshaw]

Now although the RAN ended up with Tracers operating off the refitted Melbourne

I think you mean Trackers.  The RAN never operated Tracers.

[Thorvic]

Fixed it Brian, i did mean Trackers but they were going to get Tracers as well going off their 1964 Melbourne replacement requirement

[rickshaw]

I thought that might have been what you meant...   

[Old Wombat]

I was in the RAN FAA at the time & I recall a rumour (at least) that the US had offerred us a Midway-class carrier when Invincible was taken off the table & Hermes offerred in her stead. I have no idea how solid that rumour was but I do know it went against the aim of the govt at the time which was to reduce costs & numbers in the military, especially the Navy. The rumour did include the posibility of the US providing a part-crew in exchange for more active involvement in supporting US interests the region.

[rickshaw]

Australian defence thinking has cycled between two main schools of strategy - the "forward defence" school and the "continental defence" school.  The first assumes that we should and shall fight in SE Asia to defend the Australian continent from any potential threat(s).  The second assumes that it is better to let the enemy come to us and suffer all the associated problems of trying to cross long distances to reach the continent and even longer distances to attack the main population/industrial centres in the SE corner.   Up until 1972, "Forward Defence" thinking was very much in vogue.  With the withdrawal from Vietnam, disenchantment with the idea of "meddling in other peoples' affairs" and the US defence relationship, resulted in the "Continental Defence" theorists coming to the fore.  Primary amongst those was Paul Dibb who was hired to undertake a thorough, independent review of Australia's defence needs and strategies, after the newly elected Hawke Labor government came to power in 1983.

Dibb identified the "air-sea gap" as being of supreme importance.  This was the assumed space between the continent and any of the nearest islands/land.  This he concluded needed to be defended and if a potential aggressor could not be stopped there, it must be able to be interdicted to make his supply situation difficult and therefore an invasion unlikely to succeed.  The RAN, still smarting at the loss of its carrier force and hoping to get a new one, said they couldn't do it without at least one or more carriers.  The RAAF said, "buy us new planes to replace the Mirages and we'll be able to do it!"  The Government, looking at the too options chose the latter, more on the basis of economic realities than necessarily strategic ones.  The RAAF got the F/A-18, the RAN lost any chance of ever having a real carrier ever again.

The US may have offered Midway, under those terms, Old Wombat but they would have been unacceptable to the Labor government of the day.  It was trying to distance Australia from the US, treading a careful tightrope so that domestically it could answer demands to no longer be likely to play a the usual "insurance policy payment" in Australian blood for US defence of Australia and still keeping a reactionary US, under Reagan, happy.  Remember what happened to New Zealand when it decided that domestic sovereignty was more important than US appeasement?

The RAN effectively lost the bidding war with the RAAF.  The RAAF lied and cheated.  Once you add in JORN, WEDGETAIL and in-flight refuelling, the costs exceed that of a new Carrier in 1985-6.  Also, the RAAF is only now, bringing those assets online and starting to properly integrate them.  As it is, the refuelling aircraft are still too few in number.  The RAN got the Collins class as compensation and as a bit of strategic pork-barrelling by the ALP, trying to shore up its failing government in South Australia.

Of course, the real losers were Army and it took them nearly 10 years to wake up to the fact.