Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

Do we need to sustain aircraft overhead far from base? Who are we fighting? Indonesia? Chinese carrier? The USN? Fiji? NZ? Certainly your right on we can't efficiently sustain aircraft far from base. Do we have to? Regionally there aren't a lot of aircraft to fend off. Sure there's plenty of targets to bomb, but bombing runs are different from sustained air space sanitisation. Given we struggle to put hulls into the water, etc and money looks like it will be tight for a while, is it where we need to pump cash?

So by this rationale – indeterminate nature of threat planning and the current difficulty the RAN is having with maintaining its older ships – the RAN doesn’t need to defeat an air threat? Then why do we need the AWDs or even the ESSM weapon? The point was made on the page previous that a carrier provides layered air defence capability. Something the RAN is trying to achieve on the cheap via SM6. The reason one spends lots of money on having a layered air defence system is it provides you with high survivability against a competent air threat. If you are just relaying on a single weapon system layer you are going to lose a lot of ships if someone comes at you with more technical competency and aggression than Gaddafi’s Libyan regime forces.

All this carrier talk is giving me a head ache. I might take a break from posting and lurk for a while. I can't participate in this discussion nor do I think its terribly worthwhile. It feels like 100 people trying to shape rock using their craniums. Initially curious (to watch, why? what is the motive), but ultimately painful and a tad pointless. Sometimes people take a break from the rock to shape each others heads, then go back to the rock.

Well the point was made pretty clear the page before if only some people had bothered to note it rather than to wade in thinking this was a bash the little kid talking crap moment.

There are two issues both undoubtedly answered in the affirmative:

Does the RAN require at least a light carrier capability to carry out the expeditionary operations required of it in a medium intensity threat environment. [Yes]

Does the Australian Government or any likely alternative lack the motivation or even capability to fund and reform Defence enough to acquire said carrier capability. [Yes]

 

[StingrayOZ]

By the mid 50s the force was cut to a single carrier and reduced in scope to the ASW role with Sea Venoms for ‘hack the shad’.

We had two ships in the 1950s that could both operate fixed wing aircraft. So my two carrier statement was correct.

Neither Nuships Terrible or Magestic (that became HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne) ever served in the RN and were purchased incomplete by the RAN at full cost value not surplus rates

.
But construction was initiated back in WWII was it not? Sydney was almost complete by the end of WWII. The RN did not need the ships at the conclusion of WWII? The initial reason they were build was WWII. We didn't get them for free, but the only reason they were made available, designed, built as part of a large order (hence decreasing cost overall) was WWII. Hence why the replacements were always going to be difficult.

The RAN received no war surplus aircraft all were new built and there were very few personnel even in the late 40s that had served in WWII

1948 was only a few years after the war. I think you would find most organisations with male employees was made up of veterans. It would only be a few 17,18 and a few 19 year olds that had not been conscripted as they were too young (and some much older too old). Now if you can find numbers supporting the RAN was made up of 90%+ of people between 16-19 and those who were unfit for WW2 duty or older then I will certainly change my view on this. I believe the sea fury was developed during WW2. The Fairey Firefly did serve in WW2, even if any of the airframes that Australia got didn't. I don't get what you find contentious in my statement.

The implication that the RAN carrier fleet as established in the late 1940s was a cheap WWII knock off is completely wrong.

I never said that. I stated facts which have since had emotion attached to. After WW2 arms, ships etc were available Because of the volume needed for war, they had become cheaper to produce with a skilled workforce to produce them. If you were going to aquire a carrier post WWII was a good time, as the force of naval air had decisively won out over battleships, there were a number of yards skilled in producing them, several improved designed available, so the motive, the equipment and the personnel was available in the most favourable way to allow this to happen.

They served multiple operational tours to Korea and South East Asia. If Melbourne hadn’t been in refit at the time it would have served a tour in VietNam. Just because RN and USN carriers happened to be in operation nearby doesn’t diminish their effort. If you would like to point out the Australian only conflict that happened in this time frame that they somehow missed you might have a point.

Im not diminishing their effort. I mention Korea. But what they did they did on concert with others. There is no Australian only conflict, that is my point. lack of evidence doesn't support your argument. My argument is we have never had to operate a carrier (in combat) outside of US or RN or independent of a larger international mission. The lack of Australian only missions supports that point.

Im not saying a carrier wouldn't be a valuable asset. But with a region where PNG is essentially in civil war, Timor highly unstable, Fiji under a military dictatorship. Is a carrier going to assist in missions we are likely to undertake separately.

 

[hairyman]

I need educating on this point. I thought the RAN was interested in the SM6 as a replacement for the SM2. but from what Abe is saying they intend using them both as different layers of anti-aircraft weapons with the ESSM. Is that the situation?
If it is I would take it that the SM6 would be operating further out than the SM2?

 

[t68]

From my understanding the plan was for 3 aircraft carriers but due to a lack of funding 2 were acquired and both as you know different spec. Both Sydney and Melbourne were both purchased incomplete in 1947 Sydney was launched in 1944 but was not fit for service at the end of the war, that’s why we received her in 48 built to original spec. Melbourne on the other hand still had a fair way to go and was decided to finish her of with the angled deck and would not be finished till 1955.

From 1952 to 55 we also had HMS Vengeance on loan till Melbourne was finished so in fact for a brief period in 55 we had 3 carriers in service, Sydney was deemed to costly for conversion to an angled deck and was decommissioned in 58 which gave us a single carrier capability again.

So technically they are surplus equipment had the war carried on no doubt they would have been pressed into service, but they are new built ships never used once they came into the possession of the RAN. With the exception of between 1952-55 RAN has only ever been a single carrier Navy.

So in your opinion if the funding was allocated to the ADF should not have the capacity for effective close on hand ASW, ASuW, CAS or BARCAP, that’s a lot of men and material you are gambling with. In the early days of INTERFET the RAAF had bombed up aircraft on alert, also the Marines had a MEU on board the USS Peleliu stationed off the Timorese coast, it would be interesting to find out the response time those 6 Harriers would be compared to RAAF air support if needed by those on the ground.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

We had two ships in the 1950s that could both operate fixed wing aircraft. So my two carrier statement was correct.

I was refuting your ‘heady days’ of the 1950s comment. The RAN was in decline in the 1950s from the post war plan.

But construction was initiated back in WWII was it not? Sydney was almost complete by the end of WWII. The RN did not need the ships at the conclusion of WWII? The initial reason they were build was WWII. We didn't get them for free, but the only reason they were made available, designed, built as part of a large order (hence decreasing cost overall) was WWII. Hence why the replacements were always going to be difficult.

Both carriers were 80% complete at the end of WWII. Terrible was completed first as Sydney because it had fleet command facilities and the RAN could access the 500,000 pound fund raised by the community if they named it Sydney. But neither ship was war surplus. They weren’t even finished during the war and had a lot of inherent value for RN use or export post war (they sold ships of this class to five other customers). War surplus means material written off by the military and sold at highly reduced prices.

1948 was only a few years after the war. I think you would find most organisations with male employees was made up of veterans. It would only be a few 17,18 and a few 19 year olds that had not been conscripted as they were too young (and some much older too old). Now if you can find numbers supporting the RAN was made up of 90%+ of people between 16-19 and those who were unfit for WW2 duty or older then I will certainly change my view on this. I believe the sea fury was developed during WW2. The Fairey Firefly did serve in WW2, even if any of the airframes that Australia got didn't. I don't get what you find contentious in my statement.

What a load of crap. Now you define your statements as only 10% of WWII veterans! LOL. You said the Navy was crewed with and fleet air arm piloted by all the excess war trained personnel. But if you actually read some sources on this issue, like “Wings and the Navy” the book all about this time period and the RAN’s activities. You would realise that the RAN had to recruit and train huge numbers of new personnel and offer bounties to Brits to get them to sign up. There was no mass of easily recruited, already trained personnel as you say. Then of course the aircraft. It doesn’t matter when they were designed but when they were built. All RAN fleet air arm aircraft were new built in in 1947-48 and paid for at full value.

You stated that it was easy for the RAN to establish the carrier force because all the personnel, aircraft and ships were in abundance from WWII and therefore clearly cheaper to acquire and so on. But none of this is true. The RAN’s post war recapitalisation was costed at 75 million pounds or 7.5% of GDP in 1948. This is the same as the Government today announcing a $70 billion dollar defence program!

Look you just said a few throw away lines that would seem right based on a rough guestimate. But the facts prove them wrong at every point. I have a copy of ‘Wings and the Navy: 1947 – 1953” bv Colin Jones right here beside my lap top and it does not agree…

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From my understanding the plan was for 3 aircraft carriers but due to a lack of funding 2 were acquired and both as you know different spec. Both Sydney and Melbourne were both purchased incomplete in 1947 Sydney was launched in 1944 but was not fit for service at the end of the war, that’s why we received her in 48 built to original spec. Melbourne on the other hand still had a fair way to go and was decided to finish her of with the angled deck and would not be finished till 1955.

Not quite. The requirement was only ever for two carriers and both were purchased at the same level of completion (80%). Just that Terrible/Sydney was given priority because it had fleet command facilities and the RAN could only pay for and work up the carrier and crew one at a time. The original schedule was to have Melbourne join the fleet in 1952 but was delayed by three years because of British steel shortages but this allowed time to install the new angled flight deck and steam cats.

The RAN was established as a two carrier force in the 1947-53 five year plan but it took time to work up. Because Melbourne was still being built the Vengeance was loaned in its place. But the crew and the second air wing, which were all worked up for Melbourne, were all RAN. Sydney had picked up the second air wing from the UK in 1950. The RAN was planning to replace the Sea Furies and Fireflys with Sea Hawks and Wyverns when Melbourne was delivered (1952) but the Korean War and her delays changed that.

In the mid 1950s after wasting millions on knee jerk attempts to build up the Army (conscription) the Menzies government cut back defence funding. The RAAF lost their medium bomber to replace the Canberra and their 1950s supersonic fighter. The Navy was cut back to a single carrier which was re-rolled as an ASW carrier which saw the Sea Venom reduced from a squadron to a single ‘hack the shad’ flight. The carrier was also to only last until 1962 (Indonesian sabre rattlings changed this but later). The Army lost the Nashos and the CMF was gutted but the regular force was rebuilt into the basis of something more useable (which it did so in VietNam).

The RAN tried to rebuild to a more capable carrier (Essex class with 16 Phantoms, 12 Trackers, 4 tracers and 16 Wessexi onboard) in the 1960 motivated by Indonesia's purchase of a powerful sea control force from the Soviet Union (BADGERs, KENNELs, FISHBEDs, WHISKEYs, SVERDLOV, KOMARs and STYXs) but Menzies again said no, not enough money, and instead Melbourne had like for like aircraft replacement (Tracker and Skyhawk ‘hack the shad’) and a systems upgrade.

 

[t68]

The RAN tried to rebuild to a more capable carrier (Essex class with 16 Phantoms, 12 Trackers, 4 tracers and 16 Wessexi onboard) in the 1960 motivated by Indonesias purchase of a powerful sea control force from the Soviet Union (BADGERs, WHISKEYs, KOMARs, FISHBEDS) but Menzies again said no, not enough money, and instead Melbourne had like for like aircraft replacement (Tracker and Skyhawk ‘hack the shad’) and a systems upgrade.

Thanks for that AG, sounds like Groundhog Day with respect to funding the ADF.

If the Essex class did get up obviously she would not be new would RAN been able to get a vessel that already been altered under SCB-27(straight deck) or SCB-125(angled deck) were any of these available to the RAN. Least we could have possible held onto an Essex into the 1990’s from the accounts of the last to decommission in USN service, wonder if she would have been replaced?


Just realised 83-96 was the Hawke-Keating years guess that answers that last question.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Thanks for that AG, sounds like Groundhog Day with respect to funding the ADF.

If the Essex class did get up obviously she would not be new would RAN been able to get a vessel that already been altered under SCB-27(straight deck) or SCB-125(angled deck) were any of these available to the RAN. Least we could have possible held onto an Essex into the 1990’s from the accounts of the last to decommission in USN service, wonder if she would have been replaced?


Just realised 83-96 was the Hawke-Keating years guess that answers that last question.

You can read the entire RAN submission to Cabinet by downloading the pdfs here;

RAN Essex class

The plan was to buy an Essex class in mothballs (most likely USS Phillipine Sea) and upgrade it the SCB-125A standard and introduce it into service in '67-69. She would have lasted until the 1980s. I'm sure Hawke would have had no problems keeping a carrier but probably balk at buying one from overseas, an Australian built replacement would be a different story.

 

[Volkodav]

You can read the entire RAN submission to Cabinet by downloading the pdfs here;

RAN Essex class

The plan was to buy an Essex class in mothballs (most likely USS Phillipine Sea) and upgrade it the SCB-125A standard and introduce it into service in '67-69. She would have lasted until the 1980s. I'm sure Hawke would have had no problems keeping a carrier but probably balk at buying one from overseas, an Australian built replacement would be a different story.

Small world, I have one of the Trumpeter Essex Class kits that I was thinking of doing an RAN conversion on as well. I was planning, long term, to do a number of builds starting with an SC-27 in the early 50s, an SC-125 in the late 50s and (hypothetical)RAN specific upgrades from the late 60s. My what if was that the RAN was leasing US spec carriers from the end of the Korean War rotating them back to the USN and leasing an upgraded ship as each major refit came due. HMAS Melbourne would be retained, primarily, as an ASW carrier but also as a stand in strike carrier (for when an Essex was unavailable) and in the training and commando carrier roles as well for when HMAS Sydney was unavailable. Sydney would have been the primary training and commando carrier but able to fill in as an ASW helo carrier in an emergency. Air groups would have started off primarily RN but progressively morphed to almost exclusively USN types. Already got the F-8E Crusader and Hawker Seahawk kits to build and have had a Skyhawk and Wessex for years, been eying off a Gannet and an EH-101 aswell.

I am having a lot of fun working out the escorts, leaning towards Tartar armed Counties but do like the RNs proposed GW96A gun missile cruiser and also quite like the idea of an RAN modified Leahy CLG. Have recently found the the ideal 1980s replacement for what ever I choose for the 60s, the Litton DDM AEGIS Destroyer.

All I need is time and a work bench number 1 son can't get too.

 

[t68]

Small world, I have one of the Trumpeter Essex Class kits that I was thinking of doing an RAN conversion on as well. I was planning, long term, to do a number of builds starting with an SC-27 in the early 50s, an SC-125 in the late 50s and (hypothetical)RAN specific upgrades from the late 60s. My what if was that the RAN was leasing US spec carriers from the end of the Korean War rotating them back to the USN and leasing an upgraded ship as each major refit came due. HMAS Melbourne would be retained, primarily, as an ASW carrier but also as a stand in strike carrier (for when an Essex was unavailable) and in the training and commando carrier roles as well for when HMAS Sydney was unavailable. Sydney would have been the primary training and commando carrier but able to fill in as an ASW helo carrier in an emergency. Air groups would have started off primarily RN but progressively morphed to almost exclusively USN types. Already got the F-8E Crusader and Hawker Seahawk kits to build and have had a Skyhawk and Wessex for years, been eying off a Gannet and an EH-101 aswell.

I am having a lot of fun working out the escorts, leaning towards Tartar armed Counties but do like the RNs proposed GW96A gun missile cruiser and also quite like the idea of an RAN modified Leahy CLG. Have recently found the the ideal 1980s replacement for what ever I choose for the 60s, the Litton DDM AEGIS Destroyer.

All I need is time and a work bench number 1 son can't get too.

Found some pictures of a model of the proposed RAN carrier replacement, might give you some inspiration PG4.

HMAS Australia - Essex Class replacement for HMAS Melbourne

 

[Volkodav]

Found some pictures of a model of the proposed RAN carrier replacement, might give you some inspiration PG4.

HMAS Australia - Essex Class replacement for HMAS Melbourne

Thanks for that.

Looks pretty good, ahh what could have been

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Found some pictures of a model of the proposed RAN carrier replacement, might give you some inspiration PG4.

HMAS Australia - Essex Class replacement for HMAS Melbourne

Thanks as well. Nice to see Thorvic's model after I provided him the information on the RAN's Essex class plan. Good to see he kept to the actual historical record rather than the various unfounded flights of fantasy offered by the what if mob.

Amazing to think what the RAN would have been like in the late 60s and 70s with such a carrier, Phantoms and Tracers. If only the 1960s Liberal Government had followed the recomendations of the services we could have had RAAF Vigilantes in VietNam, F-4Es replacing the Mirage from 1970 and HMAS Australia with Phantoms and Tracers.

 

[t68]

Thanks as well. Nice to see Thorvic's model after I provided him the information on the RAN's Essex class plan. Good to see he kept to the actual historical record rather than the various unfounded flights of fantasy offered by the what if mob.

Amazing to think what the RAN would have been like in the late 60s and 70s with such a carrier, Phantoms and Tracers. If only the 1960s Liberal Government had followed the recomendations of the services we could have had RAAF Vigilantes in VietNam, F-4Es replacing the Mirage from 1970 and HMAS Australia with Phantoms and Tracers.

Abraham thanks for the links earlier, but unfortunately I am not having much luck on retrieving the RAN submissions. Have found a couple of site’s referring to the PDF but when I click on them they are no longer their. I also have been trying on the National Archives site in the defence section and using the basic search engine with no luck as well.

I keep trying when I have more time.

Thanks again AG.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abraham thanks for the links earlier, but unfortunately I am not having much luck on retrieving the RAN submissions. Have found a couple of site’s referring to the PDF but when I click on them they are no longer their. I also have been trying on the National Archives site in the defence section and using the basic search engine with no luck as well.

I keep trying when I have more time.

Thanks again AG.

They are attachements at the secret projects forum where Thorvic and I are talking about his model. To see attachements on that forum you have to sign up as a member. Because of its size it is split into six parts.

 

[t68]

They are attachements at the secret projects forum where Thorvic and I are talking about his model. To see attachements on that forum you have to sign up as a member. Because of its size it is split into six parts.

Ahhh thanks,

 

[Boatteacher]

Quote [Neither Nuships Terrible or Magestic (that became HMA Ships Sydney and Melbourne) ever served in the RN and were purchased incomplete by the RAN at full cost value not surplus rates. The RAN received no war surplus aircraft all were new built and there were very few personnel even in the late 40s that had served in WWII. The implication that the RAN carrier fleet as established in the late 1940s was a cheap WWII knock off is completely wrong.

Hi all, I've been lurking on this site for some time, never really in a position to make a contribution which adds anything to the awesome sum of knowledge of your contributors. So its with some trepidation that I post this reply, especially when its a point of debate with a noted contributor. However, my understanding is that Sydney and Melbourne were purchased at a discount; buying two for the price of one (see The Navy and the Nation p213). The quoted price for the two ships before stores was pds2,750,000 (unclear if Au or Stirling - I suspect Au) although there may have been some debate about the cost of upgrades.

According to Timothy Halls "HMAS Melbourne" (and I clearly recall other reference books I've read but can't now put my hands on) a number of the Majestics and Collesus class were suspended or laid up as surplus to Britian's post war requirements; especially in light of its difficult financial circumstances. Added to the fact they were 'war build' - built in part to lower/ faster/ cheaper merchantile standards to facilitate their earlier delivery in the light of Britian's perceived needs when they were ordered in 1942 and I think its fair to describe them as war surplus.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I was refuting your ‘heady days’ of the 1950s comment. The RAN was in decline in the 1950s from the post war plan.

Well depends. Heady days, 2 carriers. So now your argument is the RAN actually went backwards when it got 2 carriers? Decline in which way? Numbers personnel? Numbers of ships? Quality of ships? During the war the RAN had no carriers, during the 50's she had two. I thought your argument was carriers bought an exponential increase in capability and power? How is that a decrease in capability of the RAN?

What a load of crap. Now you define your statements as only 10% of WWII veterans!

Well what percentage would you put on it? Your claiming "most" of the RAN in the 1948 did not participate in WW2. So what are we talking about? 90% of people not participating? Or I think you will find while many people had left the defence forces, the RAN was not a majority made up of non-WW2 vets. How could it be? Australia was sporting one of the largest airforces in the world. The number of trained pilots was huge, I'm not saying they didn't need any further training, but there was a large group of skilled pilots out there.

But if you actually read some sources on this issue, like “Wings and the Navy” the book all about this time period and the RAN’s activities. You would realise that the RAN had to recruit and train huge numbers of new personnel and offer bounties to Brits to get them to sign up. There was no mass of easily recruited, already trained personnel as you say.

The reason there was a shortage was economically things were improving, and the last thing most vets generally wanted to do was to stay in the forces. However if you look at the officers of many ships at that time, they were generally vets. So yes, there was a big drive to recruit, particularly in the low and more menial ranked positions where the conscripts left. Of course none of those brits would have been WW2 vets either.

Then of course the aircraft. It doesn’t matter when they were designed but when they were built. All RAN fleet air arm aircraft were new built in in 1947-48 and paid for at full value.

You stated that it was easy for the RAN to establish the carrier force because all the personnel, aircraft and ships were in abundance from WWII and therefore clearly cheaper to acquire and so on.

Well its more complicated than that. Its not just about cost.
Its about development. The RAN was not going to obtain a carrier before WW2 because carriers had not proven there true power at that stage. Designs were in their infancy. Australia still fell under Britians protective umbrella. We really didn't believe we were threatened directly by war.

After WW2, there were numerous carrier designs, with many ships very close to completion. Carrier aircraft were relatively cheap with designs coming straight out of WW2 and production lines still operating as set up in WW2 with people who were trained to build aircraft in WW2. We no longer fell under Britians umbrella. There was motive, there were assets, there were aircraft and there were people essentially all coming out of WW2.

You claim that nothing is surplus (come on, Sydney? even if you use a very strict definition to say it is a lie is stretching it). You also essentially claim WW2 had no effect on the strategy (motive for buying carriers), make up (ships and aircraft), personnel (officers and skilled personnel) and costs(purchase of carriers that were initiated in the middle of WW2, of the RAN into 1950's. I claim otherwise.

Abe, you have fantastic knowledge of many books, facts, historical points about defence issues. However, on these points I differ. Either on definition (ie surplus) or on interpretation.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

However, my understanding is that Sydney and Melbourne were purchased at a discount; buying two for the price of one (see The Navy and the Nation p213). The quoted price for the two ships before stores was pds2,750,000 (unclear if Au or Stirling - I suspect Au) although there may have been some debate about the cost of upgrades.

That is true the RAN brought both carriers at 50% of their value but this is how the RN sold all ten of their exported light fleet carriers. They did however recoup quite a bit of the monies they had spent during the war on these carriers and their commercial sales were a considerable success for the Treasury and the UK’s ship building industry. Unlike the USN which was happy to give away escort carriers and light fleet carriers post war as surplus items with little or no chance of recouping any value.

According to Timothy Halls "HMAS Melbourne" (and I clearly recall other reference books I've read but can't now put my hands on) a number of the Majestics and Collesus class were suspended or laid up as surplus to Britian's post war requirements; especially in light of its difficult financial circumstances. Added to the fact they were 'war build' - built in part to lower/ faster/ cheaper merchantile standards to facilitate their earlier delivery in the light of Britian's perceived needs when they were ordered in 1942 and I think its fair to describe them as war surplus.

Anyone can describe anything as anything but in order to communicate effectively one needs to subscribe to certain widely accepted definitions. War surplus are items disposed of by the military at cut prices. Items like new build aircraft (Lockheed Constellations) and ships (RN light fleet carriers) that may have been ordered for military use and then sold at full commercial value are not disposed of items.

The whole point in Stingrays argument was that the RAN was easily ably to acquire a carrier force because it could acquire the ships, aircraft and personnel war surplus and this could never be repeated without the benefit of the unique circumstances at the end of WWII. But this argument is totally wrong because it just founded on assumptions and trends rather than the actual documented evidence of the time. Which was that the material was all brand new (carriers and aircraft) purchased at full commercial value and that the RAN struggled immensely to recruit and train personnel and in no way was able to call upon significant reserves of war trained personnel.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Well depends. Heady days, 2 carriers. So now your argument is the RAN actually went backwards when it got 2 carriers? Decline in which way? Numbers personnel? Numbers of ships? Quality of ships? During the war the RAN had no carriers, during the 50's she had two. I thought your argument was carriers bought an exponential increase in capability and power? How is that a decrease in capability of the RAN?

Heady in this context means “serving to exhilarate” and ‘heady days’ means when something new is still exhilarating.

If you know anything in detail about the history of the RAN the heady days were the late 1940s when the carrier air arm was being built up. Then came the Korean War (1950-53) followed by a post war stabilisation and modernisation period (1953-56), followed by the shock of cutbacks (56-60) which included the announcement that the fixed wing carrier air arm would only be kept until 1962-64 when it would be abolished.

Now like I said before clearly to a casual perspective your opinions may seem right but they are all wrong when one actually looks at the facts.

Well what percentage would you put on it? Your claiming "most" of the RAN in the 1948 did not participate in WW2. So what are we talking about? 90% of people not participating? Or I think you will find while many people had left the defence forces, the RAN was not a majority made up of non-WW2 vets. How could it be? Australia was sporting one of the largest airforces in the world. The number of trained pilots was huge, I'm not saying they didn't need any further training, but there was a large group of skilled pilots out there.

It’s not about percentages it about your argument which was that the RAN was able to call upon large numbers of WWII trained personnel to form the carrier air wing. The RAN had no body of WWII trained carrier personnel because it had no WWII carriers nor did they provide personnel to the RN for use on their carriers The RNZN did. They had 650 trained carrier pilots after WWII and nearly acquired their own carrier for them to fly from.

All of the RAN carrier personnel had to be recruited and trained. The Fleet Air Arm was very popular and there were some 5,000 applications for the 500 positions in the late 1940s. As the RAN personnel were training the RN provided many key personnel on loan so HMAS Sydney and CAG20 could be formed. But by the mid 1950s when there were two carriers and CAG20 and 21 they were mostly all RAN. The RAN also struggled to recruit enough normal sailors to man their ships but that’s another story. As to all the ex RAAF aircrew that was good for the air force but only a tiny handful ever joined the RAN.

Well its more complicated than that. Its not just about cost.
Its about development. The RAN was not going to obtain a carrier before WW2 because carriers had not proven there true power at that stage. Designs were in their infancy. Australia still fell under Britians protective umbrella. We really didn't believe we were threatened directly by war.

I don’t know why you brought this up but you’re wrong again. The RAN very nearly acquired a flight deck carrier between the wars and it was only a lack of funding which mean HMAS Albatross was a seaplane carrier. Further Australia felt very threatened by war between the wars because of Japan. You continue just to make things up based on a very shallow understanding of history. Go out and read an actual book about these days and learn something before trying to lecture me.

After WW2, there were numerous carrier designs, with many ships very close to completion. Carrier aircraft were relatively cheap with designs coming straight out of WW2 and production lines still operating as set up in WW2 with people who were trained to build aircraft in WW2. We no longer fell under Britians umbrella. There was motive, there were assets, there were aircraft and there were people essentially all coming out of WW2.

None of this is reflected in the actual costs and schedules of these programs. All of those WWII munitions workers went back to normal jobs after the war, most of the factories set up during the war converted to civil use post war. Post War during the austerity period the British defence industry struggled to meet demand and certainly didn’t reflect the scale it was in during the mid to late 1930s. The reason HMAS Melbourne was delivered in 1955 rather than 1952 was the shortage of steel in the UK meant defence had a lower priority and the materiel went to commercial shipping.

Also post WWII the British-Australian defence relationship was quickly re-established and lots of British forces moved to Asia. You just don’t know what you are talking about in all these points. Its clear you’ve never read anything serious about Australian defence planning in the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s.

But most importantly of all none of this supports your argument. Do you really think a country allocating 7.5% of GDP in one year to a five year plan just for the Navy is doing it on the cheap! If Julian Gillard was to say tomorrow that over the next five years we will spend $70 billion on Navy acquisitions this would be something they could only do because of the UK’s defence fire sale or whatever.

There were no cheap ships, no cheap aircraft, no cheap naval aviation personnel. The only reason it all wasn’t sustained was that post WWII people were more willing to spend on defence. When the Labor Government announced this program then leader of the opposition Menzies said it didn’t go far enough. When it was announced that Melbourne would be delivered late the then Labor opposition demanded we have four carriers with two built in Australia. But by the end of the Korean War and under the newly established American nuclear umbrella in the mid-late 1950s the Menzies Government slashed defence spending and with it the carrier force, which was just able to sustain itself for 25 years until a series of unfortunate events in 1981-83 meant that it wasn’t sustained further.

 

[Tasman]

You can read the entire RAN submission to Cabinet by downloading the pdfs here;

RAN Essex class

The plan was to buy an Essex class in mothballs (most likely USS Phillipine Sea) and upgrade it the SCB-125A standard and introduce it into service in '67-69. She would have lasted until the 1980s. I'm sure Hawke would have had no problems keeping a carrier but probably balk at buying one from overseas, an Australian built replacement would be a different story.

I was facinated reading the detailed submissions made by the RAN for the proposed Melbourne replacement. What a pity the funding and political will was not there to enable it to proceed. I can just imagine the looks on the faces of the then RAAF top brass at the thought of the navy acquiring the 28 F4B Phantom II and the 8 E1 Tracer AEW aircraft needed to support the proposed embarked squadrons!

Thanks for providing this AG!

Tas