HMAS Australia - Essex Class replacement for HMAS Melbourne

[Thorvic]

OK I'll get the ball rolling with posting up the first of my builds to start tomorrow.  

Background

In 1964 the Royal Australian Navy produced a study lookinginto the options for their carrier HMAS Melbourne, whilst she had done sterling work since her commissioning she was only really capable of operating the first generations of post war Naval jet aircraft and would struggle to accommodate a worthwhile number of the next generation larger and heavier carrier aircraft.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8449.msg74978.html#msg74978

This thread on Secret Projects decibels the requirement although the PDF is no longer on the link provided, however the preferred solution by the RAN was to go for a refurbished USN Essex class with a similar refit as applied to the USS Oriskany, operating a mixed airgroup of McDD Phantoms and Grumman Trackers (Trader and Tracer aircraft). It was envisaged that this would take about 4 years to complete and for the aircrews to transition to the new types so the new Carrier would be ready by 1969/70. One point to note is that in 1964 the USN & McDD had not yet admitted that the F-4 Phantom super plane wasn't actually as good as they made out and couldn't safely operate from their modified Essex class, however they probably could have gone for the Spey powered Phantom as used by the Royal Navy or it might have helped prompt the more revised F-4HL with the higher lift wing & speys to safelu operate from the smaller carriers.

The Model

I am using the drawings for the USS Oriskany as a basis as thats the design specified in the report as the most advanced of the Essex class anled deck conversions. The kit i am using is the Trumpeter USS Yorktown as the Trumpeter kit is more to scale than the Dragon kits and the hull only goes as far as the hanger deck. Why is this important i hear you ask ?, well the Angled deck Essex conversions as well as having the encloded bows, alos had their hulls bulged to counter act the added top weight and to create more internal capacity, it will be easier to do this without the hanger walls being fitted during the building.
I already have a set of Trumpeter F-4 Phantoms, and have sourced some Trackers & Tracers using the Pitroad JMSDF aircraft set (wing of the west 2), Helicopters will be Wessex from either a Fujimi Eagle or possibly White Ensign Models.

[Thorvic]

Ok a couple of questions to our Aussies on the forum :-

1. HMAS Canberra - I selected that name as being available at the time, although there was still the USN cruiser with the same name, Given that the other carriers HMAS Sydney and HMAS Melbourne were still in service would the RAN have named their latest carrier after their Capital ? The other name i was thinking was HMAS Australia named after the country and a traditional RN name with a decent history.

2. Self Defence armament - the USN Essex class retained some of their 5 inch and 3 inch guns for self defence although the RAN didn't use these actual weapons, would the RAN have specified maybe bofors 40mm guns for AA along with perhaps the Seacat SAM systems instead ?.

Cheers

Geoff

[pyro-manic]

Nice idea. Needs some Buccaneers as well though!

[Thorvic]

Actually the proposal was the the F-4 Phantom for the Fighter/Light Strike roll, the F-111C would perform the deep strike role. The RAN was mainly focused on ASW warfare with enhanced Self-Defence.

[Jschmus]

The USN started to introduce the Sea Sparrow point defense missile system in 1967.  Given that Australia operates a mix of US and British equipment, and that later Aussie ships would be equipped with it anyway, you could fit either the "matchbox" launchers or the NATO BPDMS type.  Both are found on the weapons sprues in various Pit Road/Dragon kits.

[GTX]

Ok a couple of questions to our Aussies on the forum :-

1. HMAS Canberra - I selected that name as being available at the time, although there was still the USN cruiser with the same name, Given that the other carriers HMAS Sydney and HMAS Melbourne were still in service would the RAN have named their latest carrier after their Capital ? The other name i was thinking was HMAS Australia named after the country and a traditional RN name with a decent history.

2. Self Defence armament - the USN Essex class retained some of their 5 inch and 3 inch guns for self defence although the RAN didn't use these actual weapons, would the RAN have specified maybe bofors 40mm guns for AA along with perhaps the Seacat SAM systems instead ?.

Cheers

Geoff

Re the name, I think either Canberra or Australia would be acceptable.

Re the armament, I tend to think we may have simply gone with the US weapons.  After all, our relationship with the USA was quite strong at this point and with Vietnam just starting, we may have wanted more commonality with the USN.

Regards,

Greg

[Cliffy B]

As far as names go, the RN and the USN both had light cruisers commissioned during WWII named Birmingham and Manchester.  I don't think they ever operated in the same theater at the same time but nevertheless they existed.

HMAS Australia would be the best choice IMO as well.

I agree with Greg over the weapons as well.  They would want to keep costs down and would buy the ship(s) with whatever armament was aboard at the time if it was sufficient.  They probably would have taken delivery of the ships with 5"/38s installed and reactivated and any further desired weapons would have been installed by the Aussies themselves at a later date.

In regards to the F-4 Phantoms, remember that the USN could not and did not use them on any of the SCB Essex conversions.  The installed cats could not get a plane that heavy up to the required air speed while being that short.  They simply needed more of a takeoff run to get up to speed.  IIRC they trialed Phantoms on them and kept snapping landing gear because even at full pressure the cats couldn't get them in the air.  If you want to use F-4s on this ship, you'll have to specify that the US installed new, longer, and more powerful cats and make the necessary alterations to your deck.  Whether or not these ships could take longer cats is another question.

Hope that helps sir.

[Jschmus]

Cliffy,

He's not talking about using stock Phantoms.  There was a Phantom variant pitched to the UK that was optimized for service aboard smaller carriers, the F-4HL:

F-4(HL)

A 1966 proposal to the Royal Navy for a version of the F-4M with better catapult performance and a lower carrier approach speed than that of the F-4M. The F-4(HL) was to have been powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce RB.168-27R turbofans. It was to have had a 14-inch longer fuselage and was to have been equipped with wings with longer span (43 feet 5 1/2 inches, as compared to 38 feet 4 7/8 inches for the F-4M). Cancelled.

from scramble.nl

The hypothetical HMAS Australia wouldn't have needed stronger cats.

[Thorvic]

Ironically i was looking at my 1965 Janes Fighting Ships which has been the reference for Terra Nova and looked at the Australia section, where it mentions under HMAS Melbourne that they were going to modernise her, buy the Trackers and fit SeaCats although it appears they never got round to fitting them. So i may follow Cliff's suggestion and leave the sponsons empty.

I think I'll go for a name change to Australia too  

The interesting aspect of this proposal was it was to convert an Essex to the Oriskany standard, but it doesn't mention which ship so it must be one of the unconverted ships either the AVT's in reserve or those acting as LPH's and due to be replaced by the new build Iwo Jima class LPH.

G

[Thorvic]

Cliffy,

He's not talking about using stock Phantoms.  There was a Phantom variant pitched to the UK that was optimized for service aboard smaller carriers, the F-4HL:

F-4(HL)

A 1966 proposal to the Royal Navy for a version of the F-4M with better catapult performance and a lower carrier approach speed than that of the F-4M. The F-4(HL) was to have been powered by a pair of Rolls-Royce RB.168-27R turbofans. It was to have had a 14-inch longer fuselage and was to have been equipped with wings with longer span (43 feet 5 1/2 inches, as compared to 38 feet 4 7/8 inches for the F-4M). Cancelled.

from scramble.nl

The hypothetical HMAS Australia wouldn't have needed stronger cats.

Actually i am talking about stock Phantoms, as i said thats what the original proposal said, its one of the clues. That's the crux of the issue, at the time in the early 60's the Phantom was still being touted as the supernext generation aircraft to superceed all the earlier generation aircraft from existing fleet carriers (thats why the RAN and RN selected it as the aircraft of choice). It was only later that the reality struck home, forcing a costly conversion for the UK and McDD having to do a more comprehensive redesign which the hoped to replace the FAA Spey Tooms as well as USN Crusaders on the Hancock class angled deck Essex attack carriers.

Adds a little bit of interest too when displaying the model at shows as you can do the standard Phantoms, UK Spey tooms and maybe HL Phantoms possibly wit Crusaders as the more realistic alternative

[Jschmus]

If you're looking for a particular carrier to use for the conversion, may I suggest USS Antietam (CV-36).  She was the first angled-deck USN carrier, but did not receive any further upgrades.  Antietam was placed in reserve in 1963 after brief periods as an ASW carrier and then a training ship.  She was only twenty years old at that time and had seen comparatively little service.

[Cliffy B]

Two more carriers worth consideration would be Franklin and Bunker Hill.  Both saw only 2-3 years of combat in the Pacific, were horrifically damaged, steamed home, were completely rebuilt like new, then immediately mothballed after 1-2 Magic Carpet runs.  Both languished in the reserve fleet for 20+ years.  They're basically brand new ships and perfect for some conversion work, even in the 1960's.

I'd say go with the youngest/less used candidate(s) as possible.  We rode those old ships hard and if they were to transferred to another navy they wouldn't have much life left and/or become money pits to maintain their seaworthiness.  An SCB ship would be quickest as far as conversion is concerned but their lifespan would be considerably shorter.  If you're willing to wait the necessary amount of years and spend the money to convert one of the old straight deckers then I'd opt for them over the SCBs.

[sandiego89]

I always wanted to see an Essex class with a longer landing angled area, less angle, perhaps eliminating the port elevator or having a little more area forward of the port elevator like the Forrestal class.   More like the Ark Royal R09.  You could then have a much longer waist and bow catapult and fling off phantoms and maybe Vigilantees.  Yes the loss of a elevator is a compromise, but the port elevator was always problematic for flight ops. 

Granted this would be a major rebulid, but the angled deck always looked a little short when compared to the British or Midway class carriers.

Cliffy and Jschmus- excellent hull nominations.  TARAWA (CV-40) may be another- she never got upgraded so would have been a clean sheet of canvas.     

[Cliffy B]

An idea I've had for a long while now for an Essex build of my own helps alleviate the island of the radar cluster.  Add a lattice mast behind the island like on the USN super carriers and put you heaviest air search set on it.  The 2D and the 3D radars were swapped back and forth for a long time on those ships but its seems that the 2D was found best located on the lattice mast.  It would improve the survivability of ship immensely since one hit wouldn't have nearly as much of a chance to take out ALL of your radars in one fell swoop.  Just an idea I thought I'd pass along.

[Thorvic]

Cliffy. well the 1946 Fleet Carrier design in Friedmans has a split Island with separate funnels and radar masts coupled with a deck edge lift between the Islands. Interesting in that it has two port side deck edge lifts with a small angled deck between them for a catapult as its still an axial deck.

Reading up on the ships i suspect Leyte, Tarawa & Philippine Sea would be the prime candidates as completed post war and least modernised so no war damage and least abused hulls. Bunker Hill became a test bed for electronics in 1965 and i doubt they would offer the Franklin as Sailors are a superstitious bunch