And would they just have bought the one?
Given that every 5 years or so they go out of service for 12-18 months
Given that every 5 years or so they go out of service for 12-18 months
And would they just have bought the one?
Given that every 5 years or so they go out of service for 12-18 months
In the 70s a new-build Invincible was rejected as too expensive and her weapons, sensors and engines incompatible with the rest of the RAN. A new-build Iwo Jima was preferred because of the low costs and compatibility with other systems in service with the RAN. At the time it was planned that the Melbourne would run until 1985.
In 1981 when the 'vince was offered the ultra low initial price was enough for the Government to ignore the compatibility issues, especially when it would be cheaper to run than the Melbourne and would save $11 million on the refit scheduled for 1981. IIRC the 1981 plan was to only fly Sea Kings, no Sea Harrier purchase was included although that it likely to have occurred later.
USS Kitty Hawk and later carriers thru USS America were equipped with Terrier launchers on the port and starboard aft quarters. I believe Enterprise was supposed to have them but they were deleated to save costs. They were not installed on JFK as built and replaced by BPMDS soon after completionDo you have reference for that? Because I can't find anything stating that American carriers were equipped with Tartar, Talos or Terrier SAMS
The Tarawas were way more ship than we could handle, they were 40,000t and designed to utilise Marine planes and helicopters rather than the Army models we had purchased. IIUC they also cancelled the final 4 of the class due to massive cost escalation, which isn't helpful for us.
Is she going to have a primarily A-4 group similar to the CVS that was deployed as a 'limited attack carrier' to spread the load off the CVAs that were doing back to back rotations. Maybe add some USMC A-4s to beef up her air group?No matter what option is chosen I think that Melbourne needs to do a war cruise in Vietnam, to have hard evidence that Australia needs a carrier.
Is she going to have a primarily A-4 group similar to the CVS that was deployed as a 'limited attack carrier' to spread the load off the CVAs that were doing back to back rotations. Maybe add some USMC A-4s to beef up her air group?
What was her air group at the time? And this is an ALTERNATE history site after allWith OTL plans and suggestions no. The deployment plans up to April 1967 were as an ASW asset, and Melbourne didn't pick up the first batch of Skyhawks and Trackers until September 1967 and the refit to take them happened in 1968. By the time the A4s went to sea there were no more suggestions to use the Melbourne in Vietnam that I'm aware of.
However different things could quite plausibly butterfly that of course.
What was her air group at the time? And this is an ALTERNATE history site after all
Sea Venom was an odd choice for a carrier in the 1960's. They really should have been replaced with A4's by 1962. They were obsolescent in 1955 when Melbourne entered service and should have been seen as no more than a stopgap.
Ordering a Squadron of A4's for defence in 1959 when they decided to retain Melbourne would have been a reasonable course of action.In like 1958 it was decided that Melbourne would be disposed of in the early 60s, then in 1959 it was decided to retain her as an ASW helicopter carrier so 27 Wessex ASW helicopters were ordered.
That's a good point. Having either a Malta or 1952 design carrier means the FAA could order a bone stock Phantom instead of the massive redesign the was needed to get them to operate off decks smaller than the US Essex class. Though there will still probably be a political push to use the Spey instead of the J79.One of my favourite almost-were ships is the RN 1952 fleet carrier design. They just didn’t have the money or the RCNC manpower to do it at the time, but ended up spending far more money and manpower on the WW2 leftovers they ran instead. If it had been built (perhaps by cutting the escort programme back - which never made sense in an era of nuclear war) then the UK would have avoided a vast amount of pain later, with both the ships and air groups. The last couple of decks would probably have just about survived to the Falklands (Hermes did, and they’re probably going to be in better condition). They might well also allow CTOL aviation to survive the FAA - bigger and better decks mean fewer expensive compromises for the aircraft.