AHC: RAN Crusaders

[La Rouge Beret]

What POD would be required to have the above aircraft launched from deck of an Australian carrier?

I am working under the assumption that HMAS MELBOURNE would not be large enough to launch and recover a F-8. How could the RAN obtain a larger carrier and would a hotter confrontation suffice?

 

[StevoJH]

There were RN Centaur class carriers available in the 1960's that would have been large enough.

Another alternative would have been to purchase or lease Essex class carriers.

The Essex class required a VERY large crew though!!!

 

[Pangur]

There were RN Centaur class carriers available in the 1960's that would have been large enough.

Another alternative would have been to purchase or lease Essex class carriers.

The Essex class required a VERY large crew though!!!

That's about the size of the problem that the POD has to sort out. My suggestion would be a larger Aussie population in the 60`s. How much larger I am not sure but may be have it at say 25M .

 

[Riain]

The building of CVA01 would be a great start, with the RN pushing the HMS Centaur and HMS Hermes into the RAN as going concerns in 1965 and 73 respectively.

However the Crusader was a very hot ship with landing speeds of 140kt+, even in it's tamed French variant with BLC, blown flaps and more incidence on the wing landed at ~135kt. The Centaur and Hermes are 4-5kt slower than the Clem and Foch, so even all that work slowing the Crusaders landing speed for the French might not be enough to make it suitable for the Centaur and Hermes.

Another problem is the lack of air to ground capability in the Crusader, it could carry bombs under it's wings but lacked the attack capability of the Skyhawk. So you either have a two jet force structure for a carrier that can only carry 20 or so fast jets at best, or have a trade-off of good air to air and poor attack or good attack and poor air to air. Personally I think the Skyhawk would be a better bet for the RAN than the Crusader, as much as I like the Crusader.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Hmmm I agree on the Crusaders after all I am a fan.

So if HMS CENTAUR is adopted by the RAN, what could we expect from the air group?

My eventual aim I suppose would be to have the RAN operating Hornets from the carrier in the 1980's.

It would also come down to the threat environment of the sixties to justify a larger force presence.

 

[Riain]

In 1959 it was decided to replace the Venoms and Gannets not with a new fixed wing CAG but 27 Wessex helicopters. In 1963 after the invasion of West Papua and the beginning of the Confrontation it was decided to buy 10 A4s and 14 Trackers, with another 10 A4s being ordered in 1968 by which time we were well into Vietnam. So the threat is there to justify fighter purchases.

A HMS Centaur would carry about 20 lightweight jets in the A4, Etenard class and a few less if they were Crusaders or Corsairs. Such a small number could not justify having both fighter and attack types. Even worse would be the support requirements, if we did have 10 F8s and 10 A4s on deck we'd need probably 25 of each type for training and maintenence whereas with a single type 40 would be plenty.

My biggest beef would the the level or air threat likely to be faced. It is not the RAN's job to take of the TNI-AF, that is for the RAAF Mirages, F4s and F111s as well as the SASR and Commandos. A4s would be sufficient to shoot down shadowers and have the odd dice with lower end aircraft without the major hassle of operating the Crusader.

 

[bsmart111]

In the hands of well trained and experienced aircrew later model A-4s were a credible threat even against fighters such as the F-14, F-15, and F-16 into the late 70s and early 80s. Their ability to 'flit' around (that was a term used by fighter pilots about them at Red Flag) combined with their small size and smokeless engines made them a difficult opponent. combined with the later model AIM-9 missles they would hold their own. Noone took the scooter for granted more than once

 

[Archibald]

A HMS Centaur would carry about 20 lightweight jets in the A4, Etenard class and a few less if they were Crusaders or Corsairs. Such a small number could not justify having both fighter and attack types. Even worse would be the support requirements, if we did have 10 F8s and 10 A4s on deck we'd need probably 25 of each type for training and maintenence whereas with a single type 40 would be plenty.

My biggest beef would the the level or air threat likely to be faced.

As explained in this thread, the french navy faced a similar dilema. http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=116.20;

Yes, Crusaders were bought as early as 1964 for the Foch and Clem'. Soon however it was found they were just too small for both air defence and attack altogether. The handful of Crusaders aboard - a mere eight - would have been next to unuseful against swarms of soviet bombers and antiship missiles.
The solution was either to accept the protective umbrella of american F-14s, or buy more missile-armed, anti-aircraft frigates.

 

[Riain]

There weren't many swarms of Soviet Bombers and antiship missiles in South East Asia in the 60s and 70s, Indonesia had a handful of Tu16s, so a mere 8 Crusaders would be quite useful. My objection is less on tactical grounds and more on the technical grounds of the Crusdaer's suitability to operate off a small 28kt carrier and the wisdom and sustainability of having a 2 jet type FAA for a single small carrier as well as AEW and ASW needed to make them effective.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

A carrier is used as a force multiplier, in such circumstances especially as that which faced the RAN, being a moderate-sized navy facing a host of potentially hostile, largely brown-water navies, especially those likely to be equipped with Soviet anti-ship weaponry against which there were limited countermeasures.

It also recognises the extreme limitation of any embarked air component, which, unlike the US equivalents, would hardly ever be in a position to tackle even a developing nation's air defences/air force in open battle.

So an attack capability against hostile naval vessels, especially small missile-armed boats, would take precedence over air-to-air ability, which would just be a bonus. Hence why, given such parameters, the A4 was arguably the best choice.

 

[DD951]

Hmmm I agree on the Crusaders after all I am a fan.

So if HMS CENTAUR is adopted by the RAN, what could we expect from the air group?

My eventual aim I suppose would be to have the RAN operating Hornets from the carrier in the 1980's.

It would also come down to the threat environment of the sixties to justify a larger force presence.

To get the RAN operating F-18s from a carrier in the 1980s, they're going to need considerably more in the way of manpower & money than OTL, as in the early 80s, the French were interested in the Hornet since their Crusaders were getting long in the tooth & weren't really up to the task of intercepting Soviet bombers & their missiles before they could hit the carrier. In those trials, it was discovered that the F-18 could just barely operate from a Clem, but not while carrying anything resembling a useful load (just a couple Sidewinders, a full load of 20mm ammo, & just barely enough gas to get up to altitude & refuel from a tanker.)

Nor would an Essex be suitable, as the USN's studies at the same time (one of the proposals during the Reagan buildup was to reactivate a couple of SCB-27C Essex hulls to beef up the carrier force) found that a F-18 couldn't operate from one, not that it'd be relevant to the OTL RAN, as during the 1960s, they seriously considered acquiring one from the US (either an existing one in service, or getting one from the reserve fleet & having it reconstructed to the appropriate specs), but ultimately rejected it after a cost-benefit study found that the operating costs & manpower demands were such that the RAN wouldn't be able to afford it without putting their ability to carry out their other missions in serious jeopardy.

Thus, to get the RAN operating F-18s from a carrier in the 1980s, you're probably going to need to figure out a POD that would allow the RAN to buy & operate something along the lines of a CVA-01 or buying the FDR from the USN in the late 1970s & reconditioning her at a minimum; whether a smaller carrier such as a Centaur or Clemenceau operating Crusaders is included as an intermediate step is optional.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

More likely to have gone down the Sea Harrier route, post-Falklands anyway, as were going to have Invincible. (Although that'd require a reduction in other RAN capabilities, or increased budget; and given the limited air component any affordable carrier could operate they were better off sticking to a larger number of submarines and the air force doing the rest.)

 

[La Rouge Beret]

To get the RAN operating F-18s from a carrier in the 1980s, they're going to need considerably more in the way of manpower & money than OTL, as in the early 80s, the French were interested in the Hornet since their Crusaders were getting long in the tooth & weren't really up to the task of intercepting Soviet bombers & their missiles before they could hit the carrier. In those trials, it was discovered that the F-18 could just barely operate from a Clem, but not while carrying anything resembling a useful load (just a couple Sidewinders, a full load of 20mm ammo, & just barely enough gas to get up to altitude & refuel from a tanker.)
.

I remember reading about that test and that's what me think about the RAN purchasing a French carrier.

I disagree on the premise that the the main role of an air group should be anti surface. The RAN is going to operate throughout archipelagic sea lanes and into the Pacific or Indian oceans. In all scenario's but particularly in the 1960's / 1970's this will be beyond the range of friend land based fighter aircraft. The ability to have organic fixed wing to be able to protect the fleet is critical in this situation. When we take into consideration the low probability of kill of missiles during these decades.

If the threat remains extant from the OTL, then the A - 4 is a good choice with the ability to project a bubble around the task force if positioned correctly and the CAS capacity.

Once we start looking at the TNI obtaining stand off missiles etc, combined with FAC. Then the aircraft / carrier mix will have to change and the defence budget increase commensurately. But if we want to retain the capabilities of the A - 4 then purchasing an Invincible class aircraft carrier would be a reasonable way of going.

I am also thinking of potential conflicts that the FAA can get into to support the continuation of the fixed wing fast jet element.

 

[Riain]

The RAAF had bases in Butterworth Malaysia, Christmas and Cocos Islannds as well as Darwin, which pretty much covers archepelegic S.E.A.. The RAN-FAA would virtually always act as an adjunct, in nearby scenarios it would be an adjunct to the much greater firepower of the RAAF annd further afield as an adjunct to more powerful navies such as the USN and RN. There is little to no need for the RAN-FAA to take on a regional airforce unsupported, indeed I doubt any regional airforce would pay too much attention to a carrier when the RAAF is still at full strength.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

The RAAF had bases at these locations, but their vaunted capacity to provide continuous air cover for a naval formation has been found wanting in any and all situations.

Quite simply by the time that the threat has appeared to the formation, the RAAF is in no position to adequately respond when one factors in transit time etc. Particularly when we take into consideration the loiter time of the RAAF aircraft available at the time with the exception of the F - 4.

At no stage did I suggest that the RAN FAA should take on a regional air force by themselves, but rather their role should be to protect the task force from an airborne threat. Even if the RAN is operating in conjunction with the RN or the USN quite frankly two or even three decks is better than one.

 

[Riain]

At it's peak in about 1965 the TNI-AF had 1 sqn each of Tu16, Il28, Mig21, Mig19 and Mig17. It also had 1 Sverdlov cruiser, some destroyers, subs and assorted small craft.

The RAAF had 5 fighter sqns; Sabres transitioning to Mirages and 3 bomber sqns of Canberras, as well as Sea Venoms transitioning to A4s. Our 100 Macchis were also capable of light atttack duties.

I firmly believe that if there was a scenario where the RAN could expect to be attacked by the TNI-AF the RAAF would take the offensive with it's much greater numbers and quickly reduce the fighting capabilities of the TNI-AF to a point where it constituted little threat to the RAN Carrier. The 3 Canberra sqns would hunt down the Tu16s for starters.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

At it's peak in about 1965 the TNI-AF had 1 sqn each of Tu16, Il28, Mig21, Mig19 and Mig17. It also had 1 Sverdlov cruiser, some destroyers, subs and assorted small craft.

The RAAF had 5 fighter sqns; Sabres transitioning to Mirages and 3 bomber sqns of Canberras, as well as Sea Venoms transitioning to A4s. Our 100 Macchis were also capable of light atttack duties.

I firmly believe that if there was a scenario where the RAN could expect to be attacked by the TNI-AF the RAAF would take the offensive with it's much greater numbers and quickly reduce the fighting capabilities of the TNI-AF to a point where it constituted little threat to the RAN Carrier. The 3 Canberra sqns would hunt down the Tu16s for starters.

I don't think that we are disagreeing here Riain, merely looking at different aspects of the same problem and arriving at a multi faceted solution.

Now my thoughts are of the old trotted out communist coup in Indonesia under Sukarno, with a more militant response from the TNI towards West Papua. Which considering their original behaviour wouldn't be out of step... perhaps have the Dutch carrier sunk.

Thoughts / ideas I remember you were working on a TL about this?

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

I disagree on the premise that the the main role of an air group should be anti surface. The RAN is going to operate throughout archipelagic sea lanes and into the Pacific or Indian oceans. In all scenario's but particularly in the 1960's / 1970's this will be beyond the range of friend land based fighter aircraft. The ability to have organic fixed wing to be able to protect the fleet is critical in this situation. When we take into consideration the low probability of kill of missiles during these decades.

Air defence is vital, but with an extremely limited air group one has to go with what will make the greatest difference against the most likely adversary, especially during the 1960s when missile warfare and fast attack craft was coming of age.

In such circumstances, the ability to denude a likely enemy fleet of offensive assets, or at the very least prevent an attack on your own ships or commercial shipping, would've been achievable. Such aircraft would also be able to tackle any incursions by reconnaissance/bomber aircraft.

Sacrificing significant air-ground/range/loiter abilities for the sake of having the same number of slightly better fighter aircraft, which would in any case be aboard in tiny numbers unable to tackle a concerted air attack, would not make as much sense.

As mentioned previously, A4s were hardly slug-a-beds when it came to air combat either and, as you mention, the missiles of the day were rather poor, most especially air-to-air ones, so further reducing the superiority of a dedicated fighter aircraft as it'd come down to a (subsonic) gun fight.



With a bigger carrier there are options to cater for more scenarios, ranging all the way up to the US super carriers that single-handedly carry sufficient aircraft and munitions to overpower probably 50% of the world's air forces.

Had the RAN operate a larger carrier (Clemenceau to Ark Royal sized or so) it could've had a more powerful and mixed aircraft complement, such as F8s, A7 Corsairs and/or Skyhawk, but all that would've cost far more money and manpower, and come at the detriment of the rest of the RAN or RAAF.

 

[Riain]

I don't think that we are disagreeing here Riain, merely looking at different aspects of the same problem and arriving at a multi faceted solution.

Now my thoughts are of the old trotted out communist coup in Indonesia under Sukarno, with a more militant response from the TNI towards West Papua. Which considering their original behaviour wouldn't be out of step... perhaps have the Dutch carrier sunk.

Thoughts / ideas I remember you were working on a TL about this?

One day, when I could be bothered and have thought of a name, such a TL will appear fully formed. In that TL the Crusader, unfortunately, doesn't get a run.

An Australian-Indonesian hot war wouldn't be like Vietnam, it would be more like Arab-Israeli wars, or India and Pakistan where the gloves are off and things like airbases are on the menu. It's for this reason I don't think the RAN Centaur class will be facing off against Tu16s, they'll be busy dealing with the RAAF and the Army.

 

[Fellatio Nelson]

The whole point of the RAAF getting the F111s was to be able to deliver a knock-out strike at extreme range against any likely regional adversary they'd face (especially unaided), such as bomber bases, ports, power stations etc. etc., which drastically reduced the RAN's need for a larger carrier with a more powerful air component (aboard which the F8 might feature, alongside the Skyhawk/A7/Buccaneer, even).