Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Abraham Gubler]

If however the RAN had been permitted to take up the UKs offer of a CVL, two Tiger Class cruisers (think Superb and Swiftsure rather than Tiger, Lion and Blake) and six destroyers during the war; cruiser conversions would have been an entirely different matter. Hobart could have been the prototype with the two Tigers following with more mature fits, sticking with Tartar as it was proven suitable for conversions and had less impact on the platforms than Terrier, Sea Slug or Talos.

There were different offers of WWII ships by the RN at different times which apart from the extra destroyers included HM Ships Implacable and Indefatigable (Implacable class fleet carriers), HMS Ocean (Colossus class light fleet carrier) and HM Ships Minotaur, Swiftsure and Superb (Minotaur class light cruisers). The Tiger class light cruiser was a major rebuild of unbuilt Minotaurs that didn’t emerge until 15 years after the war with automatic 6” and 3: guns. If any of the new build light cruisers had been acquired in WWII I doubt they would have been retained in service longer than HMA Ships Australia and Hobart were post war. Despite being newer they would still be handicapped by high costs and crew needs in a Navy focused on carriers and ASW. Certainly after the mid 1950s cutbacks updating a light cruiser to provide limited air defence in the theatre ASW navy as stipulated by Government is hard to imagine.

I always thought it was a huge pity that the government did not take up the offer for the RAN to man a CVL, 2 cruisers and 6 destroyers. Later when the government finally decided that it was a good idea after all and agreed to the proposal the ships were no longer available on loan and would have had to be purchased outright so that was the end of the matter.

Well not just the Navy but the entire nation was under a critical manpower shortage at the end of WWII. We had to disband a range of Army formations to free up labour so as to keep producing food to sustain the entire Allied military effort in the Pacific. While the RN was keen to offload these fleet ships that were commissioning at the end of WWII (and the Canadians took at least one cruiser) their manpower situation was not as critical as Australia’s. To expand the RAN with these ships would have required a major reduction in air force or army capability. Since such a decision would have to be made in the middle of 1943 it was a pretty unlikely call.

In fairness there were limitations with the RAN manning of RN vessels. The N and Q class destroyers remained under the operational control of the Admiralty and so were unable to join the RAN cruisers and Tribal class destroyers in the SW Pacific, though they were assigned to the British Pacific Fleet when it was formed late in the war. Had the offer been accepted when it was made I believe it is likely that Australia could have purchased them at a good price after the war. Navy recognised the need for a couple of modern cruisers to support its carrier force but the age of the existing cruisers and the lack of funding to replace them saw the demise of the big gun cruiser shortly after the war with only one in commission as a training ship in the early 1950s. Hobart was to have replaced Australia as training ship when its modernisation was complete but the reduction to only 1 instead of 2 operational carriers resulted in the CVL Sydney being able to fullfill the training requirement.

AFAIK understand the ships were not to be loaners but total gifts. Which caused a bit of administration ruckus within the RN that delayed the proposal. So unlike the N class destroyers and others they would be under full RAN control.

In April, 1945, recognising the need for a viable local naval construction program Cabinet approved in principle the construction of 12 destroyers over a period of about 10 years. 6 destroyers were ordered shortly after the war and these were followed in 1950 with an order for 6 fast ASW frigates (similar in size to WW2 destroyers). The first 2 destroyers (Battle class) were built in reasonable time so a good start was made. Alas, the rot then set in. Construction of the next 4 (Daring class) proceeded at a snail's pace and 1 was cancelled. Likewise 2 of the Type 12 frigates were cancelled and none were commissioned until the 1960s.

The ‘rot’ wasn’t for want of trying. Australia’s economy in the 50s was booming and the naval shipbuilding sector just couldn’t attract the manpower. Espeically for what were the first ‘systems’ ships built in Australia. The Darings and Rivers were loaded with electronics that had to be installed and integrated by shipyards that had only every turned out steam and steel ships.

Officially the navy stated that cruisers were no longer required as the role could be performed by the Daring class destroyers but I am sure that if it had received 2 modern cruisers in 1945 they would have remained as escorts for the carrier force well into the 1960s. I agree that they would have been good candidates for Seaslug or Tartar.

No chance. You can crew all three Darings (300 each) with a single crew from a light cruiser (900). Two light cruisers would require the RAN’s entire destroyer and frigate crewing force from this time period.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

A lot of resourses were spent upgrading the Tribals and Q class destroyers into ASW platforms delaying the Darings and Rivers.

The Type 15 conversions were crucial to developing the skills needed to build the Darings and Rivers and provided a highly capable ASW ship in far less time than new building would have. As to the Tribal modernisations these were only meant to take six months but because of the lack of capabilities in the yards they took two years. While this may have added a year or two to the Daring’s schedule it was not a foreseeable problem and it did provide useful destroyers when they were needed (Korean and Malayan conflicts).

 

[Tasman]

If any of the new build light cruisers had been acquired in WWII I doubt they would have been retained in service longer than HMA Ships Australia and Hobart were post war. Despite being newer they would still be handicapped by high costs and crew needs in a Navy focused on carriers and ASW. Certainly after the mid 1950s cutbacks updating a light cruiser to provide limited air defence in the theatre ASW navy as stipulated by Government is hard to imagine.


AFAIK understand the ships were not to be loaners but total gifts. Which caused a bit of administration ruckus within the RN that delayed the proposal. So unlike the N class destroyers and others they would be under full RAN control.


The ‘rot’ wasn’t for want of trying. Australia’s economy in the 50s was booming and the naval shipbuilding sector just couldn’t attract the manpower. Espeically for what were the first ‘systems’ ships built in Australia. The Darings and Rivers were loaded with electronics that had to be installed and integrated by shipyards that had only every turned out steam and steel ships.



No chance. You can crew all three Darings (300 each) with a single crew from a light cruiser (900). Two light cruisers would require the RAN’s entire destroyer and frigate crewing force from this time period.

Interesting comments Abe.

I accept what you are saying. It is certainly true that the RAN would have struggled to man even one cruiser with the cutbacks in funding and personnel that occurred in the mid 50s but the original plan was for a carrier task force built around 2 CVLs, 2 cruisers and 6 large destroyers. After around 1947 however the RAN never had more than 1 cruiser in commission. Maintaining even one cruiser in commission beyond 1954 would have required the manpower that was originally projected, not what was actually provided.

If the carrier and cruisers had been provided as a gift rather than a loan as was the case with the N and Q class destroyers it is even more disappointing that the Australian government dithered until the British government changed its mind and demanded payment. It is true that expansion of the navy would have required cutbacks in RAAF and Army programs and I guess the naval board was just unable (perhaps rightly so) to push its case ahead of that of the other two services.

Re the modernisation/conversion of the Qs (after they were acquired outright in 1950) and the Tribals I have no argument with either project. The Type 15 Qs were excellent ASW ships which gave years of valuable service and modernisation enabled Arunta and Warramunga to soldier on until the completion of the new build destroyers despite their arduous war service.


Tas

 

[Tasman]

Certainly after the mid 1950s cutbacks updating a light cruiser to provide limited air defence in the theatre ASW navy as stipulated by Government is hard to imagine.

From my research it seems not all in the naval hierachy were thrilled at the Government decision to make the RAN a primarily ASW force. Whilst there was plenty of justification for this policy and it would have suited our principle allies, the US and UK, in the cold war scenario, it did limit the navy's ability to respond to other situations (eg Indonesian confrontation in the early 1960s). Hence the contingency plan to operate a scatch squadron of Sea Furies (drawn from training units) alongside Sea Venoms on Melbourne, in lieu of some or all of the Gannets. The policy would have left the RAN heavily dependent on RAAF support in the event of a clash with the Indonesian navy's cruiser Irian. However the reality is that it is Government that makes naval policy and the RAN is required to conform to that policy.

Tas

 

[icelord]

The RAN FFGs are already planned to decommission to free up crews for the AWDs. HMAS Sydney I think is schedule to haul down the flag this year.

The FFGs, especially the two Australian built ships, do have a bit of hull life left and of course the most modern systems fit of any FFG. The Government and ADI thought they were going to be selling FFG Upgrades like hotcakes to all those ex USN FFGs out there in the world. A typical market misunderstanding especially of the nature of most second hand ship users (ship is for show not for the sea). The huge delays and bad press didn’t help.

But I would expect the FFGs are likely to find new homes as long as the political side can be managed. The new DoD Disposal plan should help. I very much doubt the RNZN will be a customer but further afield in South America and the Middle East there should be buyers. Indonesia and Pakistan would be at the top of the list if the USG would release them to these countries.

FFG HMAS Sydneys(IV) plans, AFAIK and last heard, was to Decommission around the same time AWD HMAS Sydney(V) but with the 18months delay im unsure how this would continue. Sydney is in drydock now getting its cycle docking, but is expected back at sea. no ships are planned for decommissioning this year(at this stage!), but ive still got a bottle of rum on Success hauling down the flag by end of year...heres hopeing!

The RNZN could not afford to run the FFGs, and would be the last country to purchase them, after Fiji. If they were looking for another frigate(which they certainly dont) then theres 2 mothballed FFH right now that would make more sense as theres no change in training, parts etc.

 

[Tasman]

FFG HMAS Sydneys(IV) plans, AFAIK and last heard, was to Decommission around the same time AWD HMAS Sydney(V) but with the 18months delay im unsure how this would continue. Sydney is in drydock now getting its cycle docking, but is expected back at sea. no ships are planned for decommissioning this year(at this stage!), but ive still got a bottle of rum on Success hauling down the flag by end of year...heres hopeing!

The RNZN could not afford to run the FFGs, and would be the last country to purchase them, after Fiji. If they were looking for another frigate(which they certainly dont) then theres 2 mothballed FFH right now that would make more sense as theres no change in training, parts etc.

Is the rotation into reserve of 2 FFH becoming a permanent rather than a short term measure to overcome manpower and funding shortages?

I just wonder how long it will take the Defence Minister to note that the RAN has been getting by with just 10 frigates and whether that will become the new long term target.

Tas

 

[ASSAIL]

Re the modernisation/conversion of the Qs (after they were acquired outright in 1950) and the Tribals I have no argument with either project. The Type 15 Qs were excellent ASW ships which gave years of valuable service and modernisation enabled Arunta and Warramunga to soldier on until the completion of the new build destroyers despite their arduous war service.


Tas

Quadrant, Quiberon, Queenborough and Quickmatch all commenced Type 15 conversion between Apr 1950 to Apr 1951. Conversions averaged 3 1/2 years each. Life as a destroyer was only 5 or 6 years.
Quadrant was paid off to reserve after only 4 yrs service in August 57.
Quickmatch lasted 7 yrs 7 mths and paid off in Apr 63.
Quiberon decommissioned in Jun 64 after 6 yrs 7 mths.
Queenborough paid off in Jul 63 (8yrs 8 mths) but was re-activated for training between Jul 66 to Apr 72
So, by RAN standards they all had relatively short lives

The tribals' conversion was much more limited - the Q's were basically rebuilt from the main deck up - and took only 2 years
Arunta from 1950 to N0v 52 and Warramunga Sep '52 to Oct '54
The unconverted Bataan was decommissioned in Oct 1954
In their new roles Arunta only lasted until Jun 1956 ( 3 1/2 yrs) and Warramunga only slightly longer 5 yrs one month paying off Dec 1959

In summary, neither class lasted very long after conversion and reflects the manpower shortages/defence cutbacks previously discussed here.
The real benefit of the conversions was to be felt by the ability of Codock and Williamstown to constuct modern warships and by the end of the Type 12 programme the yards were as efficient as the unions would allow
Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From my research it seems not all in the naval hierachy were thrilled at the Government decision to make the RAN a primarily ASW force. Whilst there was plenty of justification for this policy and it would have suited our principle allies, the US and UK, in the cold war scenario, it did limit the navy's ability to respond to other situations (eg Indonesian confrontation in the early 1960s).

The 1950s cutbacks leading to the force levels unable to deter Indonesian aggression against Dutch New Guinea and Malaysia is one of the two main strategic failings of Australian defence since WWII. Only matched by the ‘Defence of Australia’ cutbacks in the 80s and 90s leading to the weakness of the ADF at the time of the East Timor intervention. Ironically both were politically motivated by the same inputs: save money and poor strategic perceptions of our neighbourhood.

Hence the contingency plan to operate a scatch squadron of Sea Furies (drawn from training units) alongside Sea Venoms on Melbourne, in lieu of some or all of the Gannets. The policy would have left the RAN heavily dependent on RAAF support in the event of a clash with the Indonesian navy's cruiser Irian. However the reality is that it is Government that makes naval policy and the RAN is required to conform to that policy.

Fortunately the Indonesians were pretty bad at operating all that Soviet kit they brought. Despite by 1962 having purchased hundreds of jet fighters and bombers including missile carrying Tu-16 BEAGLES (plus MiG-21s, MiG-19s, MiG-17s and Il-28s) their air force still used B-25s, A-26s and P-51s as their frontline aircraft. Their Navy had the Irian plus large numbers of Skory destroyers, Komar missile boats and Whiskey submarines enough on paper to wipe out the RAN many times over but they rarely left port. It wouldn’t be until the second half of the 1960s that they were competent with their Soviet equipment but the Indonesian Army’s anti-Communist counter revolution took care of that problem. Though at the cost of a million or so Chinese Indonesian lives.

But the cancellation of force modernisation in the second half of the 50s robbed Australia of HMAS Sydney modernised and the Vulcan medium bomber. With two light fleet carriers and the Vulcans backing up the Dutch forces we could have defeated any Indonesian invasion of West Papua, especially at their level of competency. But lacking that and American pressure West Papua was handed over to Indonesia to be colonised rather than the planed independence and federation with PNG. At the time the commentary was ‘why fighter over some cannibals’.

 

[John Newman]

no ships are planned for decommissioning this year(at this stage!), but ive still got a bottle of rum on Success hauling down the flag by end of year...heres hopeing!

Icelord, I noticed your comment again about Success, not for the first time.

So how stuffed is she, (if you can say, that is)?

Is she "Kanimbla/Manoora" totally stuffed? or "Tobruk" almost stuffed??

Wonder if any of our friends have a spare AOR they could loan us for a while, at least till a replacement is built??

 

[icelord]

Is the rotation into reserve of 2 FFH becoming a permanent rather than a short term measure to overcome manpower and funding shortages?

Tas

May as well be. Does not even seem like they have a plan for getting it upgraded. sure they signed the contract and have a finish date, but theres no real idea when they will be done. The ships sit idle, and await something. The official line is not enough crew, but that is frigging BS, there is crew everywhere ashore sitting out in dud billets, on the standard 2 years at sea, 2 years ashore(that can be changed by talking to the poster) the time frame is poor, as they have 600 sailors assigned to Fleet support unit sydney...thats techos and dibbys, go around for the base and you could secure enough cooks, comms, CSO, and alike, and the officers are spread across FHQ and Russell that would be needed. For the Govt to claim lack of crew is crud, they are there, they just find it better to keep under budget by not sailing two ships...
(for All to note, i frigging hate the waste of man power currently available to us, and have taken posting to darwin just to get back to sea. I joined the navy to sail, not sit ashore...you will find those two ships shit me every time i see them.)

I just wonder how long it will take the Defence Minister to note that the RAN has been getting by with just 10 frigates and whether that will become the new long term target.

He knows, much like he knows he can re apointment commodore Kafer but has not out of embarrasment. If he could he would have canned the AWD program and taken the funds elsewhere. destroyers take time to build, and dont look good during humanatarian matters...thats the govt priority, not defence but image.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

From my research it seems not all in the naval hierachy were thrilled at the Government decision to make the RAN a primarily ASW force.

It’s an interesting question as to what would have happened to the RAN if their 1950s plans were allowed to progress without the savage Menzie’s cutbacks. Sydney would have been upgraded with an angled deck and steam catapult and a second jet and turbine air wing acquired. The RAN had always planned to re-engine the Gannet AS.1s to boost their power for hot and dirty air operations so this would have gone ahead along with new build AS.4s to bring the force up to strength. Likewise additional later marque Sea Venoms with more powerful engines could have been acquired for fleet use with the earlier models for training.

Into the 1960s replacing these air wings would have created problems. HMAS Melbourne (and an upgraded Sydney) would be limited to aircraft of a gross 25,000 lbs in weight. While the Gannets could be replaced with Trackers or helicopters the Sea Venoms would have been harder to replace. The RN had originally wanted to replace the Sea Venom with the DH.116 which was a Sea Venom with new swept back wings, Avon with afterburner and a swept T-tail above a conventional aft fuselage sans twin booms. But after r the go ahead De Havilland had to admit they didn’t have the engineering staff to do the detail design so how about their much bigger twin engine DH.110 which became the Sea Vixen. Which had less performance than the Super Venom and weighed another 15,000 lbs.

Without an off the shelf RN replacement able to fit on the light fleet carriers there were several interesting offers around at the time including a carrier version of the Northrop F-5. The only off the shelf aircraft would be the Douglas A4D Skyhawk and Dassault Étendard IV (both were offered to the RAN) and maybe a carrier version of the Folland Gnat (aka Oscar EW5894 Phallus of “Hot Shots” fame). But neither were all weather fighters like the Sea Venom. One option would be the Grumman F11F Super Tiger. This could fit on the light fleet carriers and had a multi role capability with a radar and Mach 2.0 capability. It was widely considered a hot rod and destined for great things until Lockheed stepped in and bribed the F-104 to big orders in its place.

Then there is the fourth Daring class (HMAS Waterhen, so the new base in Sydney Harbour would need a new name!) and also the fifth and sixth River class ASW frigates (original requirement not Swan and Torrens built to replace the lost Voyager). Because of delays in domestic shipbuilding the RAN considered buying a few River class ASW frigates from Canada in place of Australian ships. These were well built ships and two Restigouche class with their twin 76mm Vickers gun mounts would have been interesting ships for the RAN. But with two light fleet carriers and up to date air wings I doubt the RAN would be in a hurry to buy Adams class DDGs. But with air cover provided by the Sea Venoms and their replacements the RAN wouldn’t have to rush a Tartar ship into service.

 

[MrConservative]

The RNZN could not afford to run the FFGs, and would be the last country to purchase them, after Fiji. If they were looking for another frigate(which they certainly dont) then theres 2 mothballed FFH right now that would make more sense as theres no change in training, parts etc.

This affordability thing is a red herring. They can afford it - they just don’t want to afford it - period. Here is the real reason it will never happen. The fact is most Kiwi’s are such flakey greenie hippies that they refuse to mine the massive deposits of minerals in the ground and suck up the huge offshore oil reserves to actually pay for anything but minimum level defence force that focuses on doing good works - God forbid any real combat capability like a couple of "hand me down FFG's so we can go and fight other people wars" because it might ruin a mythical clean green image as well as hurt some bloody frog habitat and ruin some damn patch of lichen grass. The comfortably off uber-liberal chattering classes who dominate the media and political discourse don’t like nasty warry things like FFG's and are quite content for Australia to pick up the tab – as after all they have spurned Gaia by digging up their own minerals and selling them – the philistines. I’m not being sarcastic – they really think that – they really think that they are so morally superior and clever. So count out FFG's going to NZ and not for affordability reasons - its ideological and it has always been that way.

 

[Volkodav]

The Type 15 conversions were crucial to developing the skills needed to build the Darings and Rivers and provided a highly capable ASW ship in far less time than new building would have. As to the Tribal modernisations these were only meant to take six months but because of the lack of capabilities in the yards they took two years. While this may have added a year or two to the Daring’s schedule it was not a foreseeable problem and it did provide useful destroyers when they were needed (Korean and Malayan conflicts).

I wasn't knocking it just stating the fact that they were given priority. Queenbough was my dads old ship so I have a soft spot for the Type 15s.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I wasn't knocking it just stating the fact that they were given priority. Queenbough was my dads old ship so I have a soft spot for the Type 15s.

So was mine, in fact it was his first ship.

He served on Queenborough and on Sydney (flattie) on the Korean gun line.

 

[Volkodav]

So was mine, in fact it was his first ship.

He served on Queenborough and on Sydney (flattie) on the Korean gun line.

Sydney then Queenborough for my dad, both post Korea. He has some great photos from an exercise in the late 50s with theRNincluding pics of Centaur and one of the Towns.

 

[Volkodav]

Abe, Implaceable and Indefatigable, tell me more!
one of my less realistic fantasies iinvolves Australia buying and modifying both following lessons learnt in Korea, I had no idea they were offered to us in WWII.

 

[Tasman]

Abe, Implaceable and Indefatigable, tell me more!
one of my less realistic fantasies iinvolves Australia buying and modifying both following lessons learnt in Korea, I had no idea they were offered to us in WWII.

Neither ship was modernised after WW2. Their double storied hangars had insufficient height for many of the naval aircraft coming into service - hence the reason that neither operated the Corsair in WW2 (even the single hanger Illustrious and her sisters had to have the Corsair's wingtips clipped to fit their hangar which was 2' higher). Whilst the rebuild of the single hangar Victorious included heightening the hangar (at great cost) the heightening of the double hangars in Indefatigable and Implacable would have presented enormous difficulties. Consequently they were used largely for training as the RN moved into the jet age and were not given angled decks, etc. Both were scrapped after comparatively short lives compared to the light fleet carriers.

Tas

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Abe, Implaceable and Indefatigable, tell me more!
one of my less realistic fantasies iinvolves Australia buying and modifying both following lessons learnt in Korea, I had no idea they were offered to us in WWII.

I’ll have to look up the source but from memory the offer of surplus ships was strongly pushed by Admiral Royle, RN (the commander of the RAN) and there were two distinct offers, one in late 43, early 44 and afterwards again in early to mid 45. Both offers were for aircraft carrier(s), cruiser(s) and a flotilla of destroyers. Because of the time difference different ships were available with one or two of the Impacables in mid 44 (first offer) and then the Ocean in mid 45 (second offer).

Neither ship was modernised after WW2. Their double storied hangars had insufficient height for many of the naval aircraft coming into service - hence the reason that neither operated the Corsair in WW2 (even the single hanger Illustrious and her sisters had to have the Corsair's wingtips clipped to fit their hangar which was 2' higher). Whilst the rebuild of the single hangar Victorious included heightening the hangar (at great cost) the heightening of the double hangars in Indefatigable and Implacable would have presented enormous difficulties. Consequently they were used largely for training as the RN moved into the jet age and were not given angled decks, etc. Both were scrapped after comparatively short lives compared to the light fleet carriers.

The British didn’t keep the Impacables because they had better alternatives in the Audacious class (Eagle and ark Royal) and after Victorious couldn’t afford any rebuilds of war built fleet carriers. Despite their short 14’ high hangars would still have been very useful. Especially with their higher speed compared to other British fleet carriers meaning in RAN service they could be integrated with the US fleet as the Australian Fleet Unit was. For modernisation they could have to be rebuilt like Victorious which cut the ship down to the bottom of the hangar. With the Impacables they could be an easier rebuild because the floor between the two hangars could be removed making a single three deck high 27’ hangar. And unlike Victorious with the four shaft power plant would make for a better launcher of heavy jets.

Even with the short hangars they could operate a range of useful aircraft. In WWII they could hangar the Hellcat, Avenger and Firefly which is a pretty good air wing. Postwar they could hangar the Bearcat but not the Sea Fury. They could hangar the Sea Venom but not the Gannet. They could hangar the Grumman Guardian with a tip fold on the tail. The hunter and killer Guardian would probably have been a better ASW system for the RAN than the Gannet. They could hangar the FJ-4 Fury but not the FJ-1, FJ-2 or FJ-3 Furies, go figure…

 

[Tasman]

The British didn’t keep the Impacables because they had better alternatives in the Audacious class (Eagle and ark Royal) and after Victorious couldn’t afford any rebuilds of war built fleet carriers. Despite their short 14’ high hangars would still have been very useful. Especially with their higher speed compared to other British fleet carriers meaning in RAN service they could be integrated with the US fleet as the Australian Fleet Unit was. For modernisation they could have to be rebuilt like Victorious which cut the ship down to the bottom of the hangar. With the Impacables they could be an easier rebuild because the floor between the two hangars could be removed making a single three deck high 27’ hangar. And unlike Victorious with the four shaft power plant would make for a better launcher of heavy jets.

The single 27' high hangar would still have been larger (especially in width) than the hangar in the light fleets. The Sea Vixen could have been operated with ease so the RAN would have been able to operate a good strike, ASW or general purpose airgroup from a reconstructed ship. The cost of such reconstruction and the time to do it (using Victorious as a guide) along with the much larger complement required would have been negatives but it certainly makes an interesting 'what if?'


Tas

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The cost of such reconstruction and the time to do it (using Victorious as a guide) along with the much larger complement required would have been negatives but it certainly makes an interesting 'what if?'

Yeah but there is cause and effect. With the war gift carriers, cruisers and flotilla of destroyers there would be no need to buy Sydney and Melbourne, upgrade Australia and Hobart or the Tribals. So even with higher operating cost and aircraft acquisitions the RAN would have a lot more money from their allotment to spend. Also with the major fleet units sustained with crews from the war into peace time combined with more money for higher pay and service standards the RAN might meet its recruitment goals (bigger bonuses to join, etc).

The RAN was only at around 60-70% of establishment in the 1950s being down around 5,000 on their authorised numbers. The two fleet carriers only require an additional 1,600 pers compared to two Majestic class light fleets. The freed up monies could result in more personnel and a much better post war building and upgrading program (four Battle class, all eight C class destroyers to Type 15?).

When the post Korean War funding cuts come the RAN will fall from a higher position so not land as low. Maybe only one fleet carrier would be upgraded in the 1950s with the other into reserve as a backup or spares source (one doesn’t turn a fleet carrier in a troop transport…). Come 1962 and the return of the cheque book that carrier might be modernised returning to a two fleet carrier force after an 8-10 year gap.

Thinking about the RAN Implacable ‘what if’ some more after WWII they would have to revert to all British air wings. Because the Australian treasury lacked the foreign exchange to buy from the US. The MoS couldn’t even afford a single Grumman Panther to provide CAC with a pattern jet for local build and at the start of the Korean War couldn’t raise enough US dollars to go on the waiting list for 26 Sabres so we had to buy the Gloster Meatbox (which wasn’t as bad as a lot of people make out).

So with only Pounds Sterling to pay with and limited by a 14’ hangar roof the RAN wouldn’t be able to buy the Bearcat or the Sea Fury. Their new fighter would have to be a Seafire Mk 47 or Sea Vampire. Seafangs were rejected for production as not being worth it compared to the Seafire and the Attacker would not be available until 1951-52. The RN never ordered the Sea Vampire as a standard carrier fighter because they only played with Mk 1 Vampires. These aircraft didn’t have fuel tanks in the wings so could only stay aloft for 45 minutes. Later Vampires entering RAF service in 1948 had wing tanks and could stay aloft for two hours. A Sea Vampire version of the FB.5 could have been available in 1949 to provide the RAN with a replacement for their war service fighters. RAN Implacables could have had an air wing with 36 FB Sea Vampires, 18 NF Sea Vampires (twin seat air intercept radar version) and 18 AS Fireflies in time for the Korean War.

After the Korean War the FB and NF Sea Vampires could be replaced with FB and NF Sea Venoms. The Gannet could actually replace the Firefly because when fully folded its ground height was 13’10”. It must have been specified for the Implacable hangar.

After modernisation the Implacables could handle just about any carrier aircraft and the RAN could buy American thanks to a much better financial situation. With two knots in speed on the Victorious they would be better placed to launch and recover the larger fighters of the 1960s. I think the Sea Vixen would probably be treated like the Sea Slug and something the RAN wouldn’t recommend to buy if they were asked. Certainly not with Crusaders, Super Tigers and Phantoms available from the US.