The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

I wouldn’t rate the Buccaneer as highly as it is here in the 1960s and 70s. There is good reason the RN, RAF and RAAF wanted a supersonic strike aircraft to replace it (or in its place) and it was to do with low latitude dropping of nuclear bombs and penetrating Soviet air defences. The Buccaneer was designed for toss bombing nuclear weapons and this was not believed to be survivable against Soviet threats. The Buccaneer was more than adequate platform at low level for everything less than this threat.

The RN planned a replacement for the Buccaneer under project OR.346 in the early 1960s and CVA-01 was designed to operate these aircraft but the beginning of the end in cost cutting saw OR.346 pared down and eventually replaced with cheaper aircraft. This was the beginning of the cycle of cost cutting which saw the CVA-01, TSR.2, F-111K, P.1154 and eventually the CTOL carrier force all cut. So replacing the Buccaneer could be argued to be the beginning of the end of the whole British strike carrier capability.

PS. As to the Buccaneer as a RAAF Canberra replacement I don’t think it was looked at in any detail. The Hancock study in 63 looked at the TSR.2, Mirage IV, TFX (F-111), F-4 and A-5. Previous Canberra replacement studies had looked at medium bombers with the Vulcan recommended in the late 1950s as a replacement.

 

[Bonza]

PS. As to the Buccaneer as a RAAF Canberra replacement I don’t think it was looked at in any detail. The Hancock study in 63 looked at the TSR.2, Mirage IV, TFX (F-111), F-4 and A-5. Previous Canberra replacement studies had looked at medium bombers with the Vulcan recommended in the late 1950s as a replacement.

Cheers for the correction, must have gotten my wires crossed somewhere down the line... don't know why I added the A-6 into that lot.

 

[Volkodav]

I wouldn’t rate the Buccaneer as highly as it is here in the 1960s and 70s. There is good reason the RN, RAF and RAAF wanted a supersonic strike aircraft to replace it (or in its place) and it was to do with low latitude dropping of nuclear bombs and penetrating Soviet air defences. The Buccaneer was designed for toss bombing nuclear weapons and this was not believed to be survivable against Soviet threats. The Buccaneer was more than adequate platform at low level for everything less than this threat.

The RN planned a replacement for the Buccaneer under project OR.346 in the early 1960s and CVA-01 was designed to operate these aircraft but the beginning of the end in cost cutting saw OR.346 pared down and eventually replaced with cheaper aircraft. This was the beginning of the cycle of cost cutting which saw the CVA-01, TSR.2, F-111K, P.1154 and eventually the CTOL carrier force all cut. So replacing the Buccaneer could be argued to be the beginning of the end of the whole British strike carrier capability.

PS. As to the Buccaneer as a RAAF Canberra replacement I don’t think it was looked at in any detail. The Hancock study in 63 looked at the TSR.2, Mirage IV, TFX (F-111), F-4 and A-5. Previous Canberra replacement studies had looked at medium bombers with the Vulcan recommended in the late 1950s as a replacement.

So the only way the Bucc could have ended up wearing Roos is if the RAN had acquired Hermes and her airgroup in 1968. Entering purely "what if" territory here but it follows that if the Bucc was already in service with the RAN FAA when the F-111 was delayed it would have made sense to acquire more of an existing type to cover the gap.

Always admired the upgraded Victorious, Eagle and Hermes and think its a real shame the RN didn't get to replace them (as well as Ark and Centaur) with CVA01s, then passing them onto the RAN of course.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

So the only way the Bucc could have ended up wearing Roos is if the RAN had acquired Hermes and her airgroup in 1968. Entering purely "what if" territory here but it follows that if the Bucc was already in service with the RAN FAA when the F-111 was delayed it would have made sense to acquire more of an existing type to cover the gap.

The offer of HMS Hermes (made in 1966) was for the carrier not the air group. The RAN at the time was in the process of converting to a new air group of Skyhawks and Trackers. The primary role of the RAN’s new airgroup was ASW not strike. The thinking behind the offer of the carrier was that Hermes was bigger and better and in better material condition than Melbourne and could serve longer and more effectively. The thinking wasn’t to acquire a new air group.

The RAN did want a strike carrier capability thanks to the growing threat of Indonesia and had put the case to Government. But it was rejected in the early 60s and Melbourne’s upgrade and new air wing (Skyhawks and Trackers) were acquired instead. The RAN’s preferred solution for the strike carrier was American with an upgraded Essex and multi role Phantoms for the strike fighters.

If Australian strategic assessment had been better this strike carrier proposal should have been put into place in the mid to late 1950s. In which case a British solution, complete with Bucaneers, would have been likely as a replacement for HMAS Sydney. Such a carrier and air wing would have been in place to counter Indonesias aggression against West Papua, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. and have the very aircraft designed to destroy the weapons she used to threaten out naval forces (Sverdlov, Badgers).

 

[Volkodav]

The offer of HMS Hermes (made in 1966) was for the carrier not the air group. The RAN at the time was in the process of converting to a new air group of Skyhawks and Trackers. The primary role of the RAN’s new airgroup was ASW not strike. The thinking behind the offer of the carrier was that Hermes was bigger and better and in better material condition than Melbourne and could serve longer and more effectively. The thinking wasn’t to acquire a new air group.

The RAN did want a strike carrier capability thanks to the growing threat of Indonesia and had put the case to Government. But it was rejected in the early 60s and Melbourne’s upgrade and new air wing (Skyhawks and Trackers) were acquired instead. The RAN’s preferred solution for the strike carrier was American with an upgraded Essex and multi role Phantoms for the strike fighters.

If Australian strategic assessment had been better this strike carrier proposal should have been put into place in the mid to late 1950s. In which case a British solution, complete with Bucaneers, would have been likely as a replacement for HMAS Sydney. Such a carrier and air wing would have been in place to counter Indonesias aggression against West Papua, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. and have the very aircraft designed to destroy the weapons she used to threaten out naval forces (Sverdlov, Badgers).

Yes 1966 I remembered wrong, come to think of it I think the article (in The Navy magazine) did mention that Hermes would operate Skyhawks and Trackers. Too bad really, Hermes would have been a great investment for Australia. I wonder how long the Sea Vixens could have been retained had common sense prevailed in the 60's and Ming the Merciless had decided to invest in defence instead of just posturing and proclaiming.

Out of curiosity which UK carriers could you have foreseen Australia acquiring in the late 50's to replace Sydney? Both Impacables were decommissioned in 1954, Implacable scrapped in 1955 and Indefatigable in 1956. Illustrious and Formidable were both structurally shagged from combat damage, leaving Indomitable, laid up in 1953, scrapped in 1955 as the only other alternative. The incomplete Audacious and Centaur class ships had, to my knowledge, already been broken up; may be Albion and or Bulwark pre Commando Carrier conversion?

 

[StevoJH]

Any of the three Centaurs would probably do the job. Don't forget HMS Centaur.

However, saying that, how similar were those ships across the class?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Out of curiosity which UK carriers could you have foreseen Australia acquiring in the late 50's to replace Sydney?

If the RAN had been funded for a second angled deck carrier to replace HMAS Sydney in the mid 1950s which ship would strongly depend on the timing. For example a decision later like in 1957 would enable HMS Bulwark to be transferred as it was cut from the RN as a fleet carrier thanks to the Sandys White Paper. But if the decision had been made before 1956 none of the Centaurs would have been available as all were considered at that time to have long futures in the RN.

However HMS Indefatigable was still available up until 1956 for rebuilding along the lines of HMS Victorious. While requiring the complete rebuild over the upper decks such a rebuild would not need to be as extensive as Victorious because of the more powerful and modern propulsion plant which would need replacement. Such a rebuild would probably be able to recommission by 1960 (as HMAS Australia) with the Buccaneer. While Sea Vixen would be a natural fighter it couldn’t be flown from HMAS Melbourne as a shad hacker. The RAN would probably want the new pre Sandys interceptor the Saro 177 which could probably have seen this aircraft through to production considering how the HMG funded it as long as the Germans were interested. Which is a nice unintended consequence of the RAN retaining a strike carrier capability through the 1950s. RAN Buccs and RN, RAN Saro 177s which would probably also be sold to India and others.

 

[Volkodav]

If the RAN had been funded for a second angled deck carrier to replace HMAS Sydney in the mid 1950s which ship would strongly depend on the timing. For example a decision later like in 1957 would enable HMS Bulwark to be transferred as it was cut from the RN as a fleet carrier thanks to the Sandys White Paper. But if the decision had been made before 1956 none of the Centaurs would have been available as all were considered at that time to have long futures in the RN.

However HMS Indefatigable was still available up until 1956 for rebuilding along the lines of HMS Victorious. While requiring the complete rebuild over the upper decks such a rebuild would not need to be as extensive as Victorious because of the more powerful and modern propulsion plant which would need replacement. Such a rebuild would probably be able to recommission by 1960 (as HMAS Australia) with the Buccaneer. While Sea Vixen would be a natural fighter it couldn’t be flown from HMAS Melbourne as a shad hacker. The RAN would probably want the new pre Sandys interceptor the Saro 177 which could probably have seen this aircraft through to production considering how the HMG funded it as long as the Germans were interested. Which is a nice unintended consequence of the RAN retaining a strike carrier capability through the 1950s. RAN Buccs and RN, RAN Saro 177s which would probably also be sold to India and others.

Reading on the RN carrier modernisation programs the Implacables were seen as easier and potentially cheaper to modernise then the three Illustrious class as the two 14' high hangers would be converted into a single taller hanger where the Victorious required the entire armoured deck to be lifted to work in a taller (17.5'?) in place of the original 16' hanger. (hope my figures are correct, its been a while since I read this). Victorious was chosen instead as it was desired to rebuild as many hulls as possible and it was believed that Victorious would serve as the prototype for her sisters Formidable and Illustrious where as there were only two Implacables.

The great advantange of the Implacables was that they were similar in size to the Essex so could operate a greater number of lager aircraft than the earlier armoured fleet carriers.

Too bad Australia didn't come to an arrangement for the RN to transfer both Implacables to the RAN in 1945 as Abe indicated previously. Also imagine the RN had they managed to build the Malta Class during the late 40s.

 

[RobWilliams]

The result of a fleet without enough boats

https://navynews.co.uk/archive/news/item/7795

As the latest Royal Navy hunter-killer submarine to uphold the Silent Service’s presence in the Middle East – a mission going back to 2001 – Trenchant spent 267 days east of Suez.

Some 37 crew completed the patrol as fully-qualified submariners having earned their coveted Dolphins badges as the boat added 38,800 nautical miles to her odometer – that’s the equivalent of sailing around the world one-and-three-quarter times.

The impressive statistics don’t end there. Trenchant spent 4,700 hours dived – that’s six and a half months without sunlight (bit like a British summer…).

The long patrol meant the crew consumed 30,240 eggs – which would take 45 hens laying two a day the length of the deployment to achieve; 7,904 litres of milk, the average dairy cow produces 5ltr a day, so 4.3 years ‘work’ for a single cow; and 20,592 sausages (called Snorkers by submariners) – laid end to end these would stretch approximately two kilometres. In all Trenchant’s chefs cooked 103,350 meals, and produced over 44,000 homemade rolls.

Naturally, crew exchanges did occur but according to the RN 7 of them didn't leave the boat at all. Still, we'll be in better shape when the Astutes start coming in.

With regards to the later subs, the control systems for HMS Agamemnon and HMS Ajax have been ordered. Shouldn't be long until Artful is rolled out for all to see, if Ambush's timeline is anything to go by she'd be being launched July this year, so here's hoping.

Nuclear submarines powered by North-East firm (From The Northern Echo)

 

[StobieWan]

If that doesn't make the case for an 8th boat right there, I have no idea what might....

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Reading on the RN carrier modernisation programs the Implacables were seen as easier and potentially cheaper to modernise then the three Illustrious class as the two 14' high hangers would be converted into a single taller hanger where the Victorious required the entire armoured deck to be lifted to work in a taller (17.5'?) in place of the original 16' hanger. (hope my figures are correct, its been a while since I read this). Victorious was chosen instead as it was desired to rebuild as many hulls as possible and it was believed that Victorious would serve as the prototype for her sisters Formidable and Illustrious where as there were only two Implacables.

The RN’s carrier modernisation plan of 1948 was to modernise Victorious (originally Formidable but a closer look showed Vicky was in better nick) from 1950-53 then Implacable from 53-55, then Indefatigable from 55-57 with Indomitable being modernised as a training carrier in 57. So by 1957 with HM Ships Ark Royal and Eagle the RN would have five modernised fleet carriers in addition to those light fleet carriers retained. This plan was cancelled in 1952 and change in modernisation scope for Vicky saw it take much longer.

As to modernising the Implacables the big issue as seen in Victorious was not hangar height but flight deck strength. Building this so as to support flight operations of 18 tonne aircraft (40,000 lbs) required a complete rebuild with a gallery deck below the flight deck. So for the Implacables they would have required a new structure upwards from the deck of the bottom hangar.

The great advantange of the Implacables was that they were similar in size to the Essex so could operate a greater number of lager aircraft than the earlier armoured fleet carriers.

The big advantage of the Implacables over the previous RN fleet carriers was their four shafts which enabled them to sustain the same speeds as the USN attack carriers. The RN air wings were much better by late war after adopting USN style cyclic operations. It’s hard to contemplate now but back then even a light fleet carrier would fly with 24 Corsairs and 18 Barracudas which is better than the 1945 equivalent of the CVF’s planned air wing!

Too bad Australia didn't come to an arrangement for the RN to transfer both Implacables to the RAN in 1945 as Abe indicated previously. Also imagine the RN had they managed to build the Malta Class during the late 40s.

This proposal was for the RAN to provide the commissioning crews for the Implacables (air wings would be FAA and like most at this time heavily RNZNVR) and would have likely operated as the RAN N and Q class destroyers and those AMS owned by the RN. While commissioned as HMA Ships and crewed by Aussies they were under control of the Admiralty and HMG. It was a different plan to the proposal for the late war gift fleet centered on HMS Ocean.

 

[Volkodav]

This proposal was for the RAN to provide the commissioning crews for the Implacables (air wings would be FAA and like most at this time heavily RNZNVR) and would have likely operated as the RAN N and Q class destroyers and those AMS owned by the RN. While commissioned as HMA Ships and crewed by Aussies they were under control of the Admiralty and HMG. It was a different plan to the proposal for the late war gift fleet centered on HMS Ocean.

Interesting, I wonder if this had gone ahead whether they would have been made available to the RAN post war as some of the Q's were. I suppose the issue is the RN would have been looking to retain them to maintain fleet carrier numbers. Heading off on a WIFF tangent instead, it is conceivable that had the Implacables been crewed by and commissioned into the RAN and Ocean, the cruisers and destroyers transferred to the RAN then a post war arrangement could have been made to the advantage of the RN, RAN and RNZN. Ocean transfers to NZ, the Implacables to the RAN and Australia and New Zealand assist the UK in funding the completion of the remaining two Audacious class carriers for RN service.

 

[kato]

On a completely unrelated sidenote...

7,904 litres of milk, the average dairy cow produces 5ltr a day, so 4.3 years ‘work’ for a single cow

Those cows working for the MoD are damn lazy. The average milk production per cow in the UK is approximately 18.4 liters per day. Those hens seem to have to make up for the lazy cows though, seeing how MoD hens apparently lay 2.6 times as many eggs as a regular hen...

 

[1805]

On a completely unrelated sidenote...

7,904 litres of milk, the average dairy cow produces 5ltr a day, so 4.3 years ‘work’ for a single cow

Those cows working for the MoD are damn lazy. The average milk production per cow in the UK is approximately 18.4 liters per day. Those hens seem to have to make up for the lazy cows though, seeing how MoD hens apparently lay 2.6 times as many eggs as a regular hen...

You have definitely got to much time on your hands.....but it's rare that a post on here bring me to tear...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Interesting, I wonder if this had gone ahead whether they would have been made available to the RAN post war as some of the Q's were. I suppose the issue is the RN would have been looking to retain them to maintain fleet carrier numbers. Heading off on a WIFF tangent instead, it is conceivable that had the Implacables been crewed by and commissioned into the RAN and Ocean, the cruisers and destroyers transferred to the RAN then a post war arrangement could have been made to the advantage of the RN, RAN and RNZN. Ocean transfers to NZ, the Implacables to the RAN and Australia and New Zealand assist the UK in funding the completion of the remaining two Audacious class carriers for RN service.

I doubt the RAN could crew the Implacables and then a light fleet carrier, cruiser and additional destroyer flotilla as per that plan. I agree that the RN would want to retain the Implacables post war just like they also wanted to retain the four remaining HMA N class destroyers. But to thank the RAN for their commitment they ’swapped’ these boats for additional Q class destroyers which were gifted to the RAN (three in addition to the two that had been in wartime RAN commission). I would imagine they would do something similar with the Implacables and probably gift to the RAN two light fleet carriers. Say something like a swap for HM Ships Vengeance and Venerable? Which while on paper would result in a similar post war fleet for the RAN would make for considerable differences.

 

[tatra]

On a completely unrelated sidenote...

7,904 litres of milk, the average dairy cow produces 5ltr a day, so 4.3 years ‘work’ for a single cow

Those cows working for the MoD are damn lazy. The average milk production per cow in the UK is approximately 18.4 liters per day. Those hens seem to have to make up for the lazy cows though, seeing how MoD hens apparently lay 2.6 times as many eggs as a regular hen...

Some animals fail to produce economic levels of milk to justify their feed costs.
Production below 12 to 15 litres of milk per day is not economically viable.
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_cattle"]Dairy cattle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The DHIA (Dairy Herd Improvement Association) states that fresh cows give a 150 to 180 lbs per day (17.4 to 20.9 gallons).
What is the most milk per day a cow will produce
Assume milking 3 times per day > 6-7 gallons per milking > over 20l per. Some of that will go to calfs.

 

[Cadredave]

Some animals fail to produce economic levels of milk to justify their feed costs.
Production below 12 to 15 litres of milk per day is not economically viable.
Dairy cattle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The DHIA (Dairy Herd Improvement Association) states that fresh cows give a 150 to 180 lbs per day (17.4 to 20.9 gallons).
What is the most milk per day a cow will produce
Assume milking 3 times per day > 6-7 gallons per milking > over 20l per. Some of that will go to calfs.

Mate I think you might have missed the sarcasm in his post? me thinks

 

[StobieWan]

Yeah - quick bit of moderator handwaving here - let's amble back in the direction of being on topic

 

[Volkodav]

Yeah - quick bit of moderator handwaving here - let's amble back in the direction of being on topic

More post war RN / Commonwealth wiffs? or you mean back on topic back on topic?

Does anyone have anylinks to information on post war RN heavy cruiser designs?

 

[kev 99]

More post war RN / Commonwealth wiffs? or you mean back on topic back on topic?

Does anyone have anylinks to information on post war RN heavy cruiser designs?

Nothing on line but there's a fair bit about them in D K Brown's Rebuilding the Royal Navy.