Alternative Australian carrier aircraft

WI more effective as a fighter from Majestic class carrier?

  • Total voters
    37
  • Poll closed .
La Rouge Beret

La Rouge Beret

Donor
ABC's recent thread on an Australian superpower has prompted me to consider a TL in the 1960's where the Australian FAA has the opportunity to engage in air to air combat. So without further ado I am considering a couple of aircraft to replace the Sea Venom / Skyhawks that were operated in the OTL from a Majestic class carrier. Feel free to comment as required...
 

abc123

Banned
La Rouge Beret said:
ABC's recent thread on an Australian superpower has prompted me to consider a TL in the 1960's where the Australian FAA has the opportunity to engage in air to air combat. So without further ado I am considering a couple of aircraft to replace the Sea Venom / Skyhawks that were operated in the OTL from a Majestic class carrier. Feel free to comment as required...
Click to expand...


Better to make a poll about carrier replacing HMAS Melbourne. Aircrafz will later be easily selected.
 

Russell

abc123 said:
Better to make a poll about carrier replacing HMAS Melbourne. Aircrafz will later be easily selected.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the question he posted - don't hijack other peoples threads.

On the question, the majestics are small boats. I have a hard time seeing anything much larger than the A-4 operating from them. Besides, the A-4 is an excellent aircraft.

Russell
 

Allen81

What will be the predicted role of that fighter? I mean, in the '60s what kind of most plausible situation the Australian military imagined for their navy fighters? Long range support to the US Pacific Fleet if the Cold War turns hot? Keeping air superiority at home? Other things?

The F-5 should be an interesting choice: it was effective and cheap, and on top of that it was quite reliable. But it's also a generic choice. First we have to know for what kind of situations the Australian Navy wants some aircrafts.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Its far easier to up-engine a carrier plane like the A-4, than to navalize something like the F-5. And in the long run, easier is going to be cheaper.

Skyhawks with modest upgrades to avionics as well can be dual-role as well. Decent fighters and good in the attack role. They should be good enough for anything Australia has in mind in the 80s or 90s.
 

Dilvish

For the 1960's I'll pick the F8 Crusader, with the A-4 in the ground strike role. Later on, the RAN will probably move to the Harrier.
 

abc123

Banned
Russell said:
That wasn't the question he posted - don't hijack other peoples threads.

On the question, the majestics are small boats. I have a hard time seeing anything much larger than the A-4 operating from them. Besides, the A-4 is an excellent aircraft.

Russell
Click to expand...

I don't hijacking anything...

Just giving my opinion.
 

Ward

How about a naval Version of the Jaguar The French navy had sea trials with them but the French Government wanted an all French design .
 

Riain

Jaguar M, if it can be operated from something as small as a Majestic, failing that the A4S from Singapore with the engine from a Hornet sans afterburner.
 

FlyingDutchman

Riain said:
Jaguar M, if it can be operated from something as small as a Majestic, failing that the A4S from Singapore with the engine from a Hornet sans afterburner.
Click to expand...

Jaguar M was a bit underpowered, which was the underlying reason the French didn't buy it IIRC. If underpowered, it's not going to operate from a Majestic I'd think.

Using A-4's was my choice. The cheapness and possibilities of upgrades (quite a lot actually, onsidering the size of the A-4) make it a nobrainer with hindsight.

Still, however many bells and whistles you stuff into an A-4, it's obsolete compared to a 4th generation fighter.
That means you eventually end up in the situation the Brazilians are; they've got a carrier capability, but their carrier is of limited use.

If it's small carriers the Australians want, they could choose to go STOVL later on in the '80s and replace their old carrier with a CVS and go Harrier, although that'll cost a lot.
 

Bearcat

Banned
FlyingDutchman said:
Using A-4's was my choice. The cheapness and possibilities of upgrades (quite a lot actually, onsidering the size of the A-4) make it a nobrainer with hindsight.

...

If it's small carriers the Australians want, they could choose to go STOVL later on in the '80s and replace their old carrier with a CVS and go Harrier, although that'll cost a lot.
Click to expand...

The Aussies wanted Invincible, but after the Falklands, that fell through.

And yeah, the Harrier is a natural evolution at some point. And then the F-35B, if we even build the damned thing.

There are still some in the RAN who would like to get back into the carrier business. But it would be damned expensive today. Wonder how much the UK would ask for Invincible and a few harriers? And then the refit, there's the real rub.
 

Riain

We've got 2 through-deck LPDs building, we don't need to buy Invincible.

There aren't many 4th generation fighters around here, a hotted up Skyhawk could find plenty of work to do without getting shot down too readily.

The Jaguar M was a touch low on power, but so was the F5 which neer had a carrier variant and was known to need long takeoff runs. The Crusader is a no no, it had a landing speed on 141kts for a 30kt carrier, it just couldn't get onto a 24kt Majestic. I think it might be too big for the lifts as well, but don't quote me.
 

Bearcat

Banned
Riain said:
We've got 2 through-deck LPDs building, we don't need to buy Invincible.

There aren't many 4th generation fighters around here, a hotted up Skyhawk could find plenty of work to do without getting shot down too readily.

The Jaguar M was a touch low on power, but so was the F5 which neer had a carrier variant and was known to need long takeoff runs. The Crusader is a no no, it had a landing speed on 141kts for a 30kt carrier, it just couldn't get onto a 24kt Majestic. I think it might be too big for the lifts as well, but don't quote me.
Click to expand...

Riain,

My understanding is that the RAN floated a balloon about getting a third to operate harriers and got shot down. For budgetary reasons.

How big are those ships? Could they operate a worthwhile air group?
 

Riain

The Canberras are about 22,000 tons, so they are big enough, but are designed to operate helos and land troops so I don't know about aircraft weapons and fuel handling arrangements for an ordenance truck like the F35.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top