He he, yes mate, taking the piss, old communicator jokeNot sure if you're taking the pissbut they're whip aerials lowered for flight ops.
Cheers
Cheers
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Cheers
Welcome aboard, and as everyone else has mentioned don't worry about it, more always welcome
Thanks for the reply and the info on the tracks, it was just a curiousity of mine and as mentioned I first saw them when my uncle took me onboard for a visit, I just always thought it was a really smart idea. Did you know any of the cooks onboard ?
Cheers
OK Interesting, not overly surprising though, there are no doubt many options being spun around the table, but can guarantee it would not happen while the Greens are pulling Labours strings, once the Libs are in though ?
Time will tell, I certainly do not see Perth being too far away for a CSG, tie that in with the plans in play for the Marines in Darwin and with Diego Garcia in the middle of the Indian Ocean with stockpiles of gear there ready to go, to my mind Perth would be a very good option
It would be a great investment in Defence from the US, with a lot of spin off's for us, but I think the ultimate sticking point is the word "Nuke"
I personally dont have a problem with it
Cheers
Many thanks for the welcome. As far as the cooks go the names Bill Strachan and Bill Rose come to mind.Welcome aboard, and as everyone else has mentioned don't worry about it, more always welcome
Thanks for the reply and the info on the tracks, it was just a curiousity of mine and as mentioned I first saw them when my uncle took me onboard for a visit, I just always thought it was a really smart idea. Did you know any of the cooks onboard ?
Cheers
Popeye Ashman ? Obviously my uncle who took me on the visit, I later joined to keep the family naval tradition
Just a thought on the Skyhawk.
It was the obvious choice because it was in production when the decission was made to retain our fixed wing capability but the other options that come to mind that fall within the 25000lb limit are the Douglas Skyray and the Grumman Tiger. Could they have been operated from Melbourne and would there have been sufficient airframes available.
Of course had Sydneys modernisation not been cancelled and the RAN FAA had been in the market for a new generation of fighters in the mid to late 50s new build Skyrays or Tigers would fit the bill. Take it a step further and there could even have been an Australian developed Avon powered Super Tiger with ADENs, Skyflash/Redtop and or Sidewinder.
On the line of Australian developed FAA aircraft, would it have been possible to have upgraded the Gannets with US systems to deliver a similar capability to the Tracker. Do this and it would be conceivable that each of the two RAN CVLs could have operated a group / wing of 6-8 Avon Tiger, 6-8 Gannet ASW, 2-3 Gannet AEW and say half a dozen Seakings.
It was the obvious choice because it was in production when the decission was made to retain our fixed wing capability but the other options that come to mind that fall within the 25000lb limit are the Douglas Skyray and the Grumman Tiger. Could they have been operated from Melbourne and would there have been sufficient airframes available.
Of course had Sydneys modernisation not been cancelled and the RAN FAA had been in the market for a new generation of fighters in the mid to late 50s new build Skyrays or Tigers would fit the bill. Take it a step further and there could even have been an Australian developed Avon powered Super Tiger with ADENs, Skyflash/Redtop and or Sidewinder.
On the line of Australian developed FAA aircraft, would it have been possible to have upgraded the Gannets with US systems to deliver a similar capability to the Tracker. Do this and it would be conceivable that each of the two RAN CVLs could have operated a group / wing of 6-8 Avon Tiger, 6-8 Gannet ASW, 2-3 Gannet AEW and say half a dozen Seakings.
John I do like the idea of delaying the formation of the RAN but must agree with Abe that it wouldn't make much past WWII if that far.
Imagine if the formation of the RAN had just been delayed by several years, easy to imagine with the political carry on at the time. A Tiger, or Renown Class battle cruiser or even a QE fast battleship instead of an Indefatigable Class battle cruiser, C,D, or even E class CLs inplace of the Towns, maybe even Hawkins class. Get the idea, a delay would have meant that the RAN ordered ship that would actually be of use come WWII. A newer capital ship likely would not be disposed of under the Washington Treaty.
Delaying the RAN until say 1920 would have seen the transfer of surplus RN tonnage rather than new build and chances are there would be an aircraft carrier inplace of the battle cruiser.
Had the RAN not been formed prior to WWII it is conceivable that Australians would have manned many ships of the British Pacific Fleet, likely including fleet carriers. There would have been a much greater institutional knowledge based on being an integral part of the RN meaning that were the UK to gift surplus ships to form the RAN they would be off to a running start. Imagine HMS Indefatigale and Impacable being hoot transfered to the RAN in 1946/47.
(As a side note the Grumman Tigers overall height was less than 14' therefore conceivably could have fitted in the hangers of an Implacable CV)
Imagine if the formation of the RAN had just been delayed by several years, easy to imagine with the political carry on at the time. A Tiger, or Renown Class battle cruiser or even a QE fast battleship instead of an Indefatigable Class battle cruiser, C,D, or even E class CLs inplace of the Towns, maybe even Hawkins class. Get the idea, a delay would have meant that the RAN ordered ship that would actually be of use come WWII. A newer capital ship likely would not be disposed of under the Washington Treaty.
Delaying the RAN until say 1920 would have seen the transfer of surplus RN tonnage rather than new build and chances are there would be an aircraft carrier inplace of the battle cruiser.
Had the RAN not been formed prior to WWII it is conceivable that Australians would have manned many ships of the British Pacific Fleet, likely including fleet carriers. There would have been a much greater institutional knowledge based on being an integral part of the RN meaning that were the UK to gift surplus ships to form the RAN they would be off to a running start. Imagine HMS Indefatigale and Impacable being hoot transfered to the RAN in 1946/47.
(As a side note the Grumman Tigers overall height was less than 14' therefore conceivably could have fitted in the hangers of an Implacable CV
)Blas de Lezo
Member
Impressive set of pictures of Blue Marlin and the cradle required to fit Canberra on it.
By the looks of it , it seems Canberra will be loaded dead in the centre with Canberra´s bow over hanging of Blue Marlin´s stern, with a few metres to spare in between those two towers.
La impresionante plataforma «Blue Marlin», desde dentro
Blue Marlin is scheduled to leave tomorrow to deeper waters and Canberra will be following the day after tomorrow, the loading will be done on Sat morning 8 am GMT
Best regards.
By the looks of it , it seems Canberra will be loaded dead in the centre with Canberra´s bow over hanging of Blue Marlin´s stern, with a few metres to spare in between those two towers.
La impresionante plataforma «Blue Marlin», desde dentro
Blue Marlin is scheduled to leave tomorrow to deeper waters and Canberra will be following the day after tomorrow, the loading will be done on Sat morning 8 am GMT
Best regards.
Thanks for the link Blas, certainly an interesting exercise, and will be an impressive site to watch Canberra get loaded. IIRC the Stbd tower on Marlin is removable for loading purposes, so will be interesting to see how she is loaded
Cheers
Yes, thanks for the link - I was wondering how she would be loaded.
Might that be the port tower that is removable, or am I back to front.
The RAN took delivery of the new air wing for Melbourne in 1967 and any Skyrays and Tigers would be 10 years old by then and in pretty bad condition.
The Super Tiger is a pretty good mysterious question for Australia. Thanks to American open government you can read the minutes of the ANZUS Council Meeting in Washington, October 1, 1958 in which ACM Scherger details the RAAF’s quest for a new tactical fighter.
Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958
Scherger and the Australian Ambassador Beale explain that they need a fighter unsophisticated by USAF F-105 standards but that can be flown from legacy 3,000 ft runways and have around 2,000 NM ferry range (Newcastle to Darwin, Darwin to Singapore). They were interested in Northrop’s N-156 (which became the F-5) because it was a simple fighter and supported by US MAP funding. Obviously this didn’t come together and two years later the RAAF ordered the Mirage III.
But what about the Super Tiger? Not only was it flying 1958 it was better than the F-104 and Mirage III and meet all the RAAF’s requirements for airfields and ferry range. Also Scherger mentions the need for a naval fighter (N-156 was originally designed as a naval fighter) and an Australian built Super Tiger would provide this capability as well. If ordered in 1958-59 the Super Tiger could be in service around 1962-63 because it could be built much easier than the Mirage III (no need to convert it from metric for one).
I doubt there would be any need to change the engine. J79 was better than the Avon RA7 CAC was building for the Canberra and Sabre. Also Sidewinder was the missile the RAAF wanted and Super Tiger came with it rather than the very poor Matra missile the Mirage III was supplied with. Also Super Tiger had a two seat version with Sparrow if you wanted the frontal aspect anti bomber engagement capability. An Australian built Super Tiger would probably replace the 20mm Colts for 30mm ADENs and if one for one have the same front gun capability as the Hunter (which was the world’s best until the A-10 came along) or save weight and space for fuel and go with a two gun battery like the Sabre. Anyway Super Tiger would have been a great 1960s and 70s plane for the RAAF and for a two or single light fleet carrier RAN. Probably could have sold them to the RNZAF as well.
Anything is possible but why would you? The Tracker was much better than the Gannet and came straight off the factory floor as such.
Yes your right, the port tower, how embarrassing, and I am ex Navy :tomato
The force structure of the initial RAN fleet (1 BC, 3 CL, 6 DD, 2 SS) was pretty much based on replacing the existing RN Australia Station. Except because of the continental defence strategy of the time (yes, Defence of Australia) several second rate cruisers were replaced by the destroyers and submarines which were seen as coastal defensive assets.
If the RAN had been formed in wartime (WWI or WWII) then it would have just been a case of what available new construction ships that the Australians could crew. And these like the N and Q class destroyers of WWII would have been RN owned ships even if commissioned as HMAS. So the UK have control over their deployment.
If the RAN had formed post WWI they wouldn’t have been able to acquire capital ships because these were limited by the Washington Treaty. We had to scrap HMAS Australia to comply with the tonnages allocated to the British Empire. However there would have been plenty of cruisers and destroyers available and these would probably have been gifted to the new RAN by the UK.
Another interesting time for the RAN to form would be in the 1930s before WWII as part of the global rearmament thanks to the aggressiveness of the Germans, Italians, Russians and Japanese. If formed in this time then new build ships would be almost impossible to order from the UK because of their own demand (transfers like the Leander class light cruisers was different).
So the RAN might turn to the US to order new ships like the RAAF wanted to for aircraft. The US could provide just about any number of ships wanted by the RAN in 3-4 years from order. By this time Australia was a fully independent nation thanks to the Westminster Statue so wouldn’t be limited to a share of British tonnage under the London Naval Treaty. If going all out something like 2 Yorktown class carriers, 4 Brooklyn class light cruisers and 12 Sims class destroyers by 1940 is possible. Which would make for a significant difference to the early events of WWII.
StevoJH
The Bunker Group
Given the time-frame, I would have considered a purchase from the US to be unlikely.
Depending on how worn they were, what about the earlier C-class cruisers? Could they have been given upgraded fire control or turned into AA-cruisers like the later ships of the class?
Was the UK running at full capacity for Destroyer building in the 1930's? A full squadron of Tribal Class destroyers would surely be a welcome contribution.
By the way, remember that the Westminster Statute was not ratified by the Australian Parliament until 1942.
If an Australian government in the 1930's was not limited by the London Naval Treaty though, there was probably no reason they couldn't purchase a pair or trio of Ark Royal Class carriers from the UK in the mid 1930's. Remember that there were enough free slips during that timeframe because the Illustrious and KGV's werent laid down until early-mid 1937, leaving enough time for repeat Ark Royals to be build simultaneously with the original.
Depending on how worn they were, what about the earlier C-class cruisers? Could they have been given upgraded fire control or turned into AA-cruisers like the later ships of the class?
Was the UK running at full capacity for Destroyer building in the 1930's? A full squadron of Tribal Class destroyers would surely be a welcome contribution.
By the way, remember that the Westminster Statute was not ratified by the Australian Parliament until 1942.
If an Australian government in the 1930's was not limited by the London Naval Treaty though, there was probably no reason they couldn't purchase a pair or trio of Ark Royal Class carriers from the UK in the mid 1930's. Remember that there were enough free slips during that timeframe because the Illustrious and KGV's werent laid down until early-mid 1937, leaving enough time for repeat Ark Royals to be build simultaneously with the original.
There were strong pushes from the RAAF and Civil Aviation at least to buy American in the 1935-39 timeframe but in the end were quashed by Bruce and Menzies. Menzies even breached Australian Cabinet confidence to brief British officials about counter proposals to their suspect air transport plans. The only reason CAC were able to build Texans as Wirraways was they were private industry, the Australian and British Governments wanted them to build Lysanders! And when that didn’t happen set up the DAP as a rival producing Beauforts.
Anyway we are talking about an extremely different historical chain of events that would mean there was no Australian fleet until the 1930s. Under such circumstances anything is possible.
The RN could transfer to a new (R)AN any number of their legacy ships, such as the three Leander class as they did. This is of course the most likely option for such a Navy including the source of its personnel. The CNF would probably still exsist into the 1930s but be limited to smaller patrol vessels and naval reserve units. Forming a (R)AN in the 1930s would be very much like in the 1910s and done to boost the local presence of Imperial strength against the old enemy: Japan.
Full capacity for peacetime? They were building a lot of ships after the London Treaty expired and there wasn’t much room. Even if there were slips the UK was running late on guns, armour plate, etc.
Anyway I looked it up and the London Naval Treaty did apply to Australia. The UK negotiated on behalf of the entire Commonwealth. So up until around 1937 all shipbuilding was severely limited.
However Australia could still replace some of its older ships (cruisers, destroyers) and buying American is an interesting option. Especially with carriers. Ordering one or two from the US in 1938 would result in delivery in 1940 or early 1941 at the latest. They would be a big boost to the allied war effort.
That is pretty much what I was thinking, a latter decission would have meant the in build option was something latter and better. At some point that something latter and better would have been something that would have been kept post Washington, i.e. a QE, Renown, possibably a Couragous or maybe even a Hood.
Ironically had the RAN not been formed by WWII we would likely have seen an Ark Royal and Vanguard on the Australia Station as these ships were specifically designed and intended for Far East Service. The fact Australia was paying for them would have seen them here at least some of the time and would have made them prime candidate for Australian crewing and subsequent transfer on the formation of the RAN.
The Draken was a good plane but in its initial version would need modification to carry more than one drop tank to meet the RAAF’s ferry requirement. And would still be no match for the Grumman J79 Tiger. Still can’t understand why they never looked seriously at the Tiger. They could have contracted for this plane in 1957 and they could have replaced the Sabre on CAC ‘s production line from 1960. The RAAF could have had the first fully operational squadron with a Mach 2 fighter with radar and doppler nav by 1962. Conversion from Sabre to Tiger would be much easier and the aircraft maintained a much higher safety record in service through to the 1980s. Plus of course the CAC Tiger could be supplied to the RAN to replace the Sea Venom.
The JAS 39 would be a good plane for the RAAF if there was no such thing as stealth and network technology. Even then many of the limitations from the 1950s that would have made the JAS 39 competitive to the RAAF compared to the Hornet just aren’t (or weren’t in the 1980s) there anymore.
The LCH are on there way out, 3 going in December this year.
Replacing Venom with Tiger would have been a massive leap forward for Navy. Checking weights and measures (Janes '60 - '61) there doesn't seem to be much difference between A4 and Tiger meaning they may have been able to operate from Melb without to much difficulty. We had no problems operating A4's so maybe Tigers
could have been worth looking at back then. Nothing would have happened tho because at that time it was all British.
Many times up north Venoms were unable to fly due to nil wind conditions and the poor old ship couldn't go fast enough to manufacture enough wind over the deck. Maybe Tiger with a hugh power difference over Venom wouldn't have had this problem.
The question that arises then is - what do we replace Tigers with?
- Status