AHC: Deploy HMAS MELBOURNE to Yankee station

[La Rouge Beret]

As the title says, what would the POD be required for HMAS MELBOURNE to be deployed to Yankee station.

Additionally if deployed how would her airgroup of Sea Venoms or A - 4 Skyhawks be integrated into the USN strike packages?

 

[Ak-84]

ASB. She had an endurance of a few days only after transit. The main reason she never went on a cruise. She was after all a ship designed by the British who would have had bases world wide to support them.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

You can always RAS while underway.

The question remains what POD would be needed for this to occur and if deployed how would the airgroup be integrated into the USN strike package.

 

[Riain]

ASB. She had an endurance of a few days only after transit. The main reason she never went on a cruise. She was after all a ship designed by the British who would have had bases world wide to support them.

Wow, ASB! That's a pretty big call considering she escorted Sydney to Vietnam twice, the RAN staff offered her in 1966 and talks with the 7th Fleet about her use occured again in 1967. I don't think it would take much more of a push to get her to Yankee station as an ASW and backup asset.

Melbourne would have operated from Subic Bay in the Phillipines, which is about 550 miles from Yankee Station, or about a day and a half steaming.

If Sydney is any indication she would then spend about 12 days on patrol conducting flying operations and take a week to replenish.

 

[Riain]

You can always RAS while underway.

The question remains what POD would be needed for this to occur and if deployed how would the airgroup be integrated into the USN strike package.

The best PoD would be the 1959 decision to disband the fixed wing FAA and buy 27 Wessex helicopters, this decision was rescinded in 1963 and Skyhawks ordered in Nov 64, but 4 years had been lost. It would have been better if this decision hadn't been taken and the FAA started casting around for new aircraft back in about 1960.

As for integrating the aircraft into the strike package, I don't think that would be particularly difficult, the USN managed to integrate aircraft from different carriers into large strikes. What's one more, using A4s, going matter.

 

[BigWillyG]

How much was Australia in the war? Would Melbourne's aircraft have been used only for CAS over the South or would they have flown missions Downtown?

 

[Riain]

How much was Australia in the war? Would Melbourne's aircraft have been used only for CAS over the South or would they have flown missions Downtown?

That's a really difficult and complex question. Our participation meant conscription for overseas service which was very hard work politically and damaged the entiure cause. It also meant we expanded the army to breaking point. But we didn't send our medium artillery capability nor much in the way of the major fighting strength of the RAAF or RAN once the Confrontation wound down.

However our Canberra sqn did go north of the DMZ despite their unsuitability in terms of ECM and performance. So my guess is that while a Melbourne Skyhawk sqn wouldn't go 'downtown' it most probably would bomb the north. I'd also suggest that due to the lack of political restrictions like the US had the Melbourne CAG would get niche missions, possibly laid on at short notice.

 

[Matt Wiser]

The RAN Skyhawks (and if they purchased any, F-8s), would probably not go into RP 6: the Hanoi-Haiphong area. Other than that, the other USN strike areas (RPs 2,3, and 4; RPs 1 and 5 were USAF) would be available. Most strikes in those RPs were mainly armed reconnaissance, though Alpha Strikes (full air wing missions) were flown against targets such as the Thanh Hoa (Dragon's Jaw) bridge in RP 4. This does set up the very strong possiblity that RAN pilots do wind up in the Hanoi Hilton (and the Zoo, Plantation Gardens, etc.) until 1973.

 

[Riain]

I've got 'Up Top', I'll read it and come back with the reason why it didn't happen. Armed with that we can bang out some PoDs.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

The best PoD would be the 1959 decision to disband the fixed wing FAA and buy 27 Wessex helicopters, this decision was rescinded in 1963 and Skyhawks ordered in Nov 64, but 4 years had been lost. It would have been better if this decision hadn't been taken and the FAA started casting around for new aircraft back in about 1960.

Now if the government of the day decides to maintain the fast jet element of the FAA, then we may not get the A-4 immediately. What I have often thought could happen is that we may navalise the Avon Sabre ala the American Fury.

This raises a very interesting possiblity if MELBOURNE has a war cruise off North Vietnam from inception of Mig 17 vs Avon Sabre / American Fury which would be really interesting.

For me I have always wondered if the A-4 was deployed how the RAN would develop organic ECM capability. Would we use Trackers in a large scale jamming role or go with mission pods for a couple of A-4's per package. Alternatively out of left field if the RAN cannot deploy MELBOURNE due to an upgrade, what change VF - 805 is deployed from an American carrier?

 

[Riain]

It appears that timing is everything.

An order in Nov 64 means a delivery voyage in late 67 and ship reift in late 67 to early 69. So for every practical reason you can imagine a Skyhawk sqn in Vietnam isn't going to happen with OTL procurement decisions. You need to change that 1959 decision to be changed and the Skyhawk procurement to be moved forward.

If I ever get my fat clacker into gear and write my TL that decision will be changed.

 

[bsmart]

I think it would be more likely that she would be used on Dixie Station supporting CAS in the South. Maybe beef up the A-4 continingent and the shrink the fighter contingent. Trackers could be used for the interdiction of seaborne supply routes. Dixie Station could also be seen as direct support of the Australian land contingent which would probably be politically sound.

 

[Dilvish]

What was the attrition rate (combined combat and non-combat) for USN carriers on "Yankee Station"? How would combat losses of aircraft and aircrew affect the Australian war effort?

 

[TheMann]

If the RAN was looking to deploy the Melbourne to Vietnam, I would strongly recommend that they get a few better fighters and leave the Trackers at home - the Trackers aren't needed, and having an airgroup of 6-8 F-8H Crusaders and the rest of them being the Skyhawks makes for a stronger air group. The idea of using the Melbourne to back up the Australian soldiers on the ground (and perhaps free up some USN resources for Yankee Station) also is a good idea.

 

[Riain]

Dixie station ended in August 1966, the same month as the Indonesian Confrontation, the Australian commitment to which precluded the use of Melbourne in Vietnam in any sustained sense.

I don't think Crusaders could comfortably operate from Melbourne even if they were modified like the French versions. Melbourne iss too small and more importantly too slow for the Crusader with its 141kt landing speed. Besides the USN would be responsible for the fleet defence of the Melbourne and our planes wouldn't operate in the highest threat areas, which would be left for the highest tech USN planes like the A6.

As for operational losses, during the discussion for putting a large-ish RAN contingent on a USN carrier it was believed that RAN pilots would be shot down and taken prisoner.

I've been thinking about the RN decision to phase out the Gannet in favour of ASW helicopter. Perhaps Australia could do the same thing; buy 20+ Wessex and more than 10 Skyhawk instead of Trackers at the same time.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

That could work utilising a helicopter in the ASW role provided that we acquired dipping sonar for use. Using a Sea King would be ideal and also for the utility role.

I think and it hurts me to say this but if I want the RAN to launching strikes against North Vietnam then the RAAF needs to be going downtown as well. In OTL from memory a deployment of Mirage III's were considered, but were unable to deploy due to logistics issues (i.e. French refusing to maintain supply).

 

[Riain]

For the vast majority of the war there were prohibited zones, 20 miles around Hanoi and 8 miles around Hiaphong, and restricted zones 60 miles wide around Hanoi and 20 miles wide around Hiaphong. Coincidently these zones were full of SAMs and Mig bases.

There is no way the RAN or RAAF is going into these zones, they just aren't equipped to do so nor was the political will to do anything like that. I think that the RAN and RAAF would be restricted to the southernmost route packages as well as CAS in Sth Vietnam. Besides Rolling Thunder ended in late 1968, so the window for Australian bombing over Nth Vietnam is very tight. Melbourne was in refit from late 1967 to early 1969 and her Skyhawks weren't carrier qualified until after that, which in my mind is an insurmountable problem with a minimum change PoD, since Rolling Thunder ended in Nov 68.

Canberras deployed to Phan Rang in April 1967 and sporadically struck targets north of the DMZ until Rolling Thunder was cancelled 17 months later. They were withdrawn in June 1971, 10 months before bombing of the north resumed.

 

[Riain]

Just as a variation of the Yankee station idea, what about Melbourne doing some work on Operation Sea Dragon in 1966-7? Perhaps she lingers after a Sydney escort run and uses her Gannets to search for WBLC north of the DMZ. It wouldn't require new aircraft or difficult integration with the USN, just aircraft to search and attack waterborne and coastal targets.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

That could work.

Have an embarked Clearance Diving Team to conduct opposed boardings... intriguing.

 

[Riain]

I think a war cruise with the Melbourne would work wonders for the RAN in later years, even if it wasn't very dramatic.

Perhaps a second war cruise could be conducted right at the end of Sea Dragon/Rolling Thunder if the Melbourne's refit ended sooner and the CAG got carrier qualified on a visiting USN carrier while Melbourne was in refit. It was one variation mooted in 'Up Top'.