Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Volkodav]

Straining the old grey matter here but from memory (of things I have read and been told over the years) the RN initially planned to upgrade most of the armoured fleet carriers omitting only Indomitable due to her unique design.

The early plans were based on the first three ships as the design work would provide the most return, the Implacables were the next best option with two hulls while Indomitable was the least appealing as there was only one hull. The poor material condition of Illustrious and Formidable saw Victorious first in line. It was expected that the first two could be repaired during the modernisation process which, as Abe stated, was very extensive. On Victorious specifically (and I don’t remember the specific source) the modernisation was took so long because of scope creep and poor planning, i.e. deciding to replace the boilers after the new hanger and flight deck had been installed.

The modernisation planned for the Implacables differed from the Victorious in a number of ways, including the installation of 8 twin Mk6 3” in place of the 4.5” mounts and I believe a deck edge elevator.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The modernisation planned for the Implacables differed from the Victorious in a number of ways, including the installation of 8 twin Mk6 3” in place of the 4.5” mounts and I believe a deck edge elevator.

That sounds like the gun arrangement planed for the abortive new build 1951 RN fleet carrier. They were mounted on sponsoons not in the deck edge positions of the 4.5" guns. See attached drawing that some nice person put together on the internet with various 1950s angled deck carriers to scale. If the Implacable included a deck edge elevator it might also have a waist catapult?

 

[rossfrb_1]

snip
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.
snip

OK, off on a slight tangent.
Given that the Sea Vampire was ever only experimental, so little is known of its performance (well what I can find anyway).
What engine would likely have powered a RAN Sea Vampire?

How would such a beast have fared against the Mig 15 in the Korean war? (Not taking into account RAN pilot proficiency). The Meteor didn't do too well against the Mig 15.

cheers
rb

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Given that the Sea Vampire was ever only experimental, so little is known of its performance (well what I can find anyway).

Only the Sea Vampire F.10 was experimental and it was just a F.1 fitted with a hook. The other “Sea Vampires” were standard RAF models used as shore based training aircraft so navy pilots could get experience on jets before the Attacker and Sea Hawk were delivered. Any RAN Implacable fleet service Sea Vampire would be a minor modification of the RAF production Vampire (FB.5, NF.10). With just a hook, wing fold, and other minor changes needed for naval use.

What engine would likely have powered a RAN Sea Vampire?

While the RAAF brought Bankstown built Vampires with CAC built Rolls Royce Nene engines the RAN never showed any enthusiasm for Australian built operational aircraft. Also unlike the RAAF they would be replacing war built aircraft so wouldn’t have the luxury of time to wait for the Australian line to start up. I would imagine they would just buy standard Ghost powered Vampires with modifications for fleet use (see above) from one of the UK Vampire lines.

How would such a beast have fared against the Mig 15 in the Korean war? (Not taking into account RAN pilot proficiency). The Meteor didn't do too well against the Mig 15.

The Meteor did better than most people assume. According to the actual users they were unprepared for a change in mission when they received the Meatbox. They went from a ground attack Mustang squadron to an interceptor unit and had poor fighter tactics. They flew at cruising speed and were too slow to respond when jumped by the MiG-15s. Even the Sabres were always jumped by the higher flying MiGs but flew at top speed in MiG Alley so they could then turn the tables on the MiGs coming down to fight. The RAAF were also flying too high (30-40k) so they couldn’t use the Meteor’s superior climb rate at medium altitude (15-20k). So when jumped their tactics were defensive to accelerate and spiral down. Even then the Meatbox held its own in the air to air fights as an air superiority platform. They didn’t score any kills but only lost one to the MiGs which considering the 3 and 4 to 1 force ratios isn't so bad. They then flew bomber escort which was a tough mission but no kills or losses. The big December 1, 1951 battle saw 40 MiG-15s on 12 Meteors with two MiGs killed and three Meteors lost. 77 then moved to ground attack and low level escort missions with excellent results and more MiG kills.

As to the Vampire it was slower and had a lower ceiling than the Meteor. But it’s handling and excess specific power at altitude would have been the key issues and I don’t know the foggiest as to what they were. It would have had better pilot view for one. The Meteor was the RAF’s frontline fighter at the time and if they had deployed fighter units to Korea it would have been them. But whatever the Sea Vampire would have been much better than the Sea Fury as an air to air platform.

 

[swerve]

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..

Why not the Sea Fury? It was Brtiish, designed & built by Hawker, powered by a Bristol Centaurus - all from the UK. The engines were made 110 km west of here, & the aircraft built a much shorter distance to the east. You could certainly buy it with sterling.

Damn fine aeroplane. Best you could have got, until jets.

 

[Tasman]

Why not the Sea Fury? It was Brtiish, designed & built by Hawker, powered by a Bristol Centaurus - all from the UK. The engines were made 110 km west of here, & the aircraft built a much shorter distance to the east. You could certainly buy it with sterling.

Damn fine aeroplane. Best you could have got, until jets.

Abe was saying that the Sea Fury wouldn't have fitted in the 14' hangar. I'm sure I have seen photos of the Sea Fury operating from Implacable (damned if I can find it now) and one source states that 807 squadron embarked in Implacable with Sea Furies in May, 1948. Maybe this was for training or trials only as 807 was embarked operationally in Theseus in September of that year. Lack of dollars would have excluded the Bearcat and the hangar height would have excluded the Sea Fury.

101 Sea Furies were actually acquired by the RAN.


Tas

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

Add to that the actual level of taxation in NZ is low and the NZG could haul in a lot of revenue in a very short time with minimal effort just by a change to taxation. There is no capital gains tax. The company tax is IIRC about 33% and if you have a good accountant you avoid most of it. The highest level of personal income tax is either 30 or 33%. GST went up from 12.5% to 15% in Oct 2010. Death duties don't kick in until the estate is valued at something like IIRC $500K (I could be wrong on this). The current NZG is highly adverse to taxation increases especially on the wealthy. When it was elected in 2008 it cut the top tax rate back from 39% to what it is now. Even with the Christchurch earthquakes and the very significant problems of insurance companies aversion to writing new policies in the Christchurch region affecting the rebuild, the current NZG will not increase the EQC levy or create a new levy to cover the insurance of new builds in the short to medium term. Long story short. if the NZG wanted to increase the defence budget and operate two extra FFHs plus acquire an air combat Force it could afford to by just increasing taxation which it refuses to do.

This is sort of the wrong thread (RAN) for getting into NZ taxation Ngati so thats why I will just postscript here. My view is that taxation increases are definitely not the silver bullet, are not revenue neutral and eventually kill productivity, skew monetary flexibility and head us into PIIGS territory. Cheers MrC

 

[ASSAIL]

Ministerial petulance

Now that Stephen Smith's unbridled ambition to return to Foriegn Affairs has been quashed and he is firmly ensconced in defence, are we likely to see any movement in the ADFA CDRE Kafer reinstatement/resolution?
As well, how is the Minister performing as the Defence advocate/minder? The perception from a afar is that he is extremely critical, unfriendly and aloof from the defence community.
I ask these questions, not from a political perspective but from a performance one.
Could those who are closer the the machinations of the Canberra defence community offer a report card please, if that does not contravene the forum rules?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Why not the Sea Fury? It was Brtiish, designed & built by Hawker, powered by a Bristol Centaurus - all from the UK. The engines were made 110 km west of here, & the aircraft built a much shorter distance to the east. You could certainly buy it with sterling.

The Sea Fury was too tall to fit into the hangars of the Implacable class. Sitting on all three wheels with wings folded its height was over 16'. With the wings down its height was still 15 and a half feet because of the prop. This was fine for most RN carriers at the time with their 18' high hangars but the Implacables had a 14' high hangar. So any Sea Furies embarked could not be striked down below which means nothing but day training.

Another post war aircraft that could fit into the Implacables was the Blackburn Firebrand torpedo fighter. They would make for the air to ground mix with air to air Seafire 47s. Leaving it only able to operate Seafires, Firebrands, Fireflies, Vampires, Attackers, Venoms and Gannets from British stock.

 

[hairyman]

Interesting read in todays "The Age", that Tenix is being investigated over bribery allegations concerning 5 deals between 2001 and 2008. The particular deals all occurred while the company was owned by the billionaire Salteri family of Sydney.
A former defence minister was a consultant to the company during some of the period under investigation.

Can anyone seriously see the RAN acquired a fixed wing air-arm again in the future? I cant.

 

[ASSAIL]

Cooperative Engagement Capability - CEC

Having read through some of the more esoteric searches regarding the Anzac ASMD upgrade there were a couple of references inferring that CEC might be capable of being or indeed fitted to the ANZACS. Considering that ESSM has a mid course guidance (can this be from other units if CEC is fitted?) capability and an extreme range of 90+ miles, is this possible or even planned?
Cheers

 

[icelord]

Now that Stephen Smith's unbridled ambition to return to Foriegn Affairs has been quashed and he is firmly ensconced in defence, are we likely to see any movement in the ADFA CDRE Kafer reinstatement/resolution?
As well, how is the Minister performing as the Defence advocate/minder? The perception from a afar is that he is extremely critical, unfriendly and aloof from the defence community.
I ask these questions, not from a political perspective but from a performance one.
Could those who are closer the the machinations of the Canberra defence community offer a report card please, if that does not contravene the forum rules?

your about 2 hours early with this post. hes been returned, yet the prick has taken the high ground and claimed he was right in having him stood down(theres no denying, he told CDF to do it). always gotta point score of defences back.
The general consensus within defence is the man is a retard trying to get promoted off our misfortunes, when something happens he jumps up and down, demands action and then stands back to watch it happen. If something good happens, its his hard work...etc. this is a guy who stated publicly when he was given Defence portfolio that he "would rather stay foreign affairs minister"...wow, thanks douche, just what we want, a guy who doesnt want to be our boss cause he doesnt like defence, one of the hardest portfolios that requires a dedicated minister, not someone looking elsewhere...

 

[swerve]

The Sea Fury was too tall to fit into the hangars of the Implacable class. Sitting on all three wheels with wings folded its height was over 16'. With the wings down its height was still 15 and a half feet because of the prop. This was fine for most RN carriers at the time with their 18' high hangars but the Implacables had a 14' high hangar. So any Sea Furies embarked could not be striked down below which means nothing but day training.

Ah, I see. I misunderstood your post.

 

[Volkodav]

The Sea Fury was too tall to fit into the hangars of the Implacable class. Sitting on all three wheels with wings folded its height was over 16'. With the wings down its height was still 15 and a half feet because of the prop. This was fine for most RN carriers at the time with their 18' high hangars but the Implacables had a 14' high hangar. So any Sea Furies embarked could not be striked down below which means nothing but day training.

Another post war aircraft that could fit into the Implacables was the Blackburn Firebrand torpedo fighter. They would make for the air to ground mix with air to air Seafire 47s. Leaving it only able to operate Seafires, Firebrands, Fireflies, Vampires, Attackers, Venoms and Gannets from British stock.

Firebrand now thats an aircraft I hadn't thought of, what about the Firecrest, how did it fold its wings, would it have been short enough?

Another that comes to mind is the Fairey Spearfish.

I did notice that 801 Sqn operated Sea Hornets from Implacable, could they be fitted in the hanger or did they have to used the deck park only? RAN FAA operating Sea Hornets from Implacables would have been something.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Firebrand now thats an aircraft I hadn't thought of, what about the Firecrest, how did it fold its wings, would it have been short enough?

Another that comes to mind is the Fairey Spearfish.

I did notice that 801 Sqn operated Sea Hornets from Implacable, could they be fitted in the hanger or did they have to used the deck park only? RAN FAA operating Sea Hornets from Implacables would have been something.

Firecrest folded its wings in two joints and they were the most compact folds ever. But the nose and prop were too high sitting on the tail so well over 14'. Spearfish had the Grumman style wing fold but was huge and as a tail dragger the nose and prop was way over 14'.

I don't have a ground height figure for the Sea Hornet but a quick estimate makes it look around 16'. Which is a shame because it was a great aircraft and one that deserved a bigger chance to serve. The RAF was scrapping their Hornets with under 2-3 years on the clock which was just bloody criminal.

What would have been something was the Supermarine 391 designed to follow the Seafang and use the Rolls-Royce Eagle. With 3,600 hp driving eight blades and a super streamlined shape this fighter would have out Bearcated the Bearcat. It could even outfly the Vampire (faster, higher, out climb) despite being 1/3 heavier with three times the range and carrying a 18” torpedo not to mention not having a jet engine.

 

[Volkodav]

Firecrest folded its wings in two joints and they were the most compact folds ever. But the nose and prop were too high sitting on the tail so well over 14'. Spearfish had the Grumman style wing fold but was huge and as a tail dragger the nose and prop was way over 14'.

I don't have a ground height figure for the Sea Hornet but a quick estimate makes it look around 16'. Which is a shame because it was a great aircraft and one that deserved a bigger chance to serve. The RAF was scrapping their Hornets with under 2-3 years on the clock which was just bloody criminal.

What would have been something was the Supermarine 391 designed to follow the Seafang and use the Rolls-Royce Eagle. With 3,600 hp driving eight blades and a super streamlined shape this fighter would have out Bearcated the Bearcat. It could even outfly the Vampire (faster, higher, out climb) despite being 1/3 heavier with three times the range and carrying a 18” torpedo not to mention not having a jet engine.

Checked it out, the 391 is one very nice looking aeroplane, the RR Eagle also brought the original Wyvern to mind. Boy what could have been had the RAN been allowed to accept the Implacables.

If Australia was smarter, combined with the extra money available once the need to pay for a post war fleet was removed, all three services could have been much better off. What I am thinking is combined RAAF / RAN FAA buys of aircraft, there were plenty of carrier based aircraft that were as good as if not better than the land based types the RAAF actually bought, while many of the decent land based types also had carrier based variants.

Would a modernised Implacable be able to operate F-4 Phantoms and A5 Vigilantes?

 

[Australian_1000]

What is the next Ship class to be replaced, and has the government said what it will be replaced with. (not the Adelaide's)

Thanks.

 

[SASWanabe]

on paper it seems like the Balikpapans should be next to get replaced. but in reality with Success+Sirius in their current state my bet is on them being next.

Defence Capability Plan 2009 - Public Version - December 2010 Update

there hasnt been any government word on either as of yet but my bet is on a member of the Aegir family replacing Success + Sirius. the balikpapans im not very sure about, but the main contender is probably the BMT Caimen
i however would like to see something similar to the Bacolod City class LSV

 

[Australian_1000]

which one would the Navy want to replace first, the Balikpapan or Success & Sirius? btw how old is Sirius?

Thanks

 

[gf0012-aust]

which one would the Navy want to replace first, the Balikpapan or Success & Sirius? btw how old is Sirius?

Thanks

one of the three is completely donald ducked.