Australia get's HMS Hermes

[abc123]

As we all know, Australia wanted to buy HMS Invincible at the begining of 80s, but Falklands war stopped that. So Australia was offered HMS Hermes as a replacement and squadron of Sea Harriers. New Labour governent decided not to replace HMAS Melbourne.

How can we shift that descision, so that Australia get's HMS Hermes with Harriers. I presume that Hermes would be given practicly for free, and Harriers would have to paid for. The trouble is, Hermes was old and manpower requierments would be larger than for Melbourne.
So, how can we change that descision and have RAN with retained carrier capabilities?

 

[Riain]

The problem is the change of government from Liberal to Labour, and subsequent change of defence policy. By 1986 the Dibb report came out with the Air-Sea Gap which said carriers were not needed among other things. It all happened at the wrong time, as much as it pains me.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

I concur with Riain in order for this to occur we require a Frasier government or Hawke with a better understanding of the positives of having a carrier for the Australian military. For this to occur we require the FAA to be used in combat or their effectiveness shown in the previous decade, perhaps under Whitlam?

You are correct regarding the maintenance schedule being intensive with her age and manpower limitations. We would probably see some elements of minimum manning, which has happened to most Australian surface combatants in the last decade. Alternatively HERMES could have a massive refit in Australia or the States with Regan as President to reduce the manpower requirements.

 

[Cook]

Your proposal would see a Carrier that was commenced in 1943, launched in 1945 and commissioned in 1955 being replaced by a carrier that was commenced in 1944, launched in 1953 and commissioned in 1959. Replacing one carrier that is thirty years old with another carrier that is thirty years old, both of which are of designs that are nearly forty years old, is hardly modernising the fleet is it?

 

[mats]

Did the RAN really need a carrier anyways? It was very expensive and manpower heavy.

 

[Cook]

Did the RAN really need a carrier anyways? It was very expensive and manpower heavy.

Did the RAN, whose role was the defence of the Australian Commonwealth and her interests abroad need an independent air defence and force projection capability anywhere in the quarter of the world that was their area of operations?

 

[La Rouge Beret]

80 % of Australian imports / exports arrive by sea. Now the need to have an aircraft carrier when you border the North Sea, when your surface combatants can be adequately covered by excellent radar and are a stone's throw away by supersonic fixed wing assets is negligible.

If you are a medium navy with responsibilities that extend into two oceans, with an expeditionary focus, without the comforting presence of fixed wing air support on tap. Mainly due to our air force having a negligible amount of tankers and a fixation on short ranged aircraft. Than the ability to project a bubble around our surface combatants becomes essential to the fleet.

 

[Riain]

Maybe if we`d used Melbourne in Vietnam she would have been replaced, perhaps by Hermes as an interim until we got a new carrier which i think was the guts of the proposal. I wonder what would have happened to the Harrier family if We had bought some for Hermes and the new ship.

 

[TheMann]

Maybe if we`d used Melbourne in Vietnam she would have been replaced, perhaps by Hermes as an interim until we got a new carrier which i think was the guts of the proposal. I wonder what would have happened to the Harrier family if We had bought some for Hermes and the new ship.

I'm surprised Melbourne wasn't used in Vietnam. The RAAF was in on it and four RAN destroyers did gunfire support duty, all four subsequently getting shot at by the Vietnamese and in one case shot at by an American Phantom. The Melbourne wasn't a strike carrier early on, but with escorts around, they could have left the Trackers at home and brought out more Skyhawks and gone for it.

As for a replacement, going for anything old is a waste of time. Australia doesn't have the funds or manpower to operate a large carrier. I think the best bet they may have had would be to build a new unit that can operate the Hornets Australia was buying at the time. The only off the shelf option available at the time would have been the Clemenceau class, or something built for the purpose. Hermes would be a bigger ship, but just as old and just as difficult to get parts for. Such a ship would require no bigger a crew than the Melbourne, which is a definite plus, and I can see the French allowing Australia to build a clone down under.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

The reason Melbourne wasn't deployed during the early years of the Vietnam conflict, was due to the concerns of the Australian government towards Sukarno and Konfrontasi. A POD where an engagement occurs with the TNI, could prompt funding to acquire a replacement carrier. Additionally until 1967 the FAA operated the Sea Venom an aircraft that would be badly exposed up north, but could potentially operate in a tac air capacity at Dixie station.

 

[abc123]

Your proposal would see a Carrier that was commenced in 1943, launched in 1945 and commissioned in 1955 being replaced by a carrier that was commenced in 1944, launched in 1953 and commissioned in 1959. Replacing one carrier that is thirty years old with another carrier that is thirty years old, both of which are of designs that are nearly forty years old, is hardly modernising the fleet is it?

True, but Hermes was 50% bigger carrier, that could ( as Falklands showed 9 carry up to 37 Harriers and that, after all, is in service even today, in India, after 25+ years.

And I don't see any big difference between Harrier and Skyhawk. In fact, Harrier is better.

 

[Cook]

And I don't see any big difference between Harrier and Skyhawk. In fact, Harrier is better.

Of course the Harrier’s better, it’s a generation younger that the Skyhawk. And that was the point of trying to purchase an Invincible class carrier; it would modernise the fleet with a new generation carrier. The Hermes would have just been bigger, not newer.

 

[abc123]

Of course the Harrier’s better, it’s a generation younger that the Skyhawk. And that was the point of trying to purchase an Invincible class carrier; it would modernise the fleet with a new generation carrier. The Hermes would have just been bigger, not newer.

True. I presume that larger staffing requierments of Hermes and price of refit could easily be more expencive than Invincible?

 

[Cook]

I expect so.

 

[chris N]

An overhaul of the ship could very well result in a drastic decrease in the amount of manpower that the ship would require to operate.

 

[Riain]

Australian carriers is a sad tale going back to 1959 when it was decided to replace the Venoms and Gannets with 27 Wessex helicopters. This decision was reversed in 1963 as the Konfrontasi started and Skyhawks and Trackers were first ordered, but 4 crucial years had been lost. So the Melbourne had an obsolete airgroup in 1966 and 1967 when discussions were held for her to deploy to Vietnam and the Konfrontasi was over so the capacity existed.

I think that if Melbourne went to Vietnam her value would have been noticed and her replacement assured.

 

[abc123]

Australian carriers is a sad tale going back to 1959 when it was decided to replace the Venoms and Gannets with 27 Wessex helicopters. This decision was reversed in 1963 as the Konfrontasi started and Skyhawks and Trackers were first ordered, but 4 crucial years had been lost. So the Melbourne had an obsolete airgroup in 1966 and 1967 when discussions were held for her to deploy to Vietnam and the Konfrontasi was over so the capacity existed.

I think that if Melbourne went to Vietnam her value would have been noticed and her replacement assured.

True, but that replacement should have to be before 80s.

 

[Riain]

The plan, prior to it being shafted by the Invincible offer, its retraction due to Falklands, change of govt and Dibb report was for Melbourne to serve until about 1986-7. An $11 million refit in 1981 that would have seen the catapult rebuilt was cancelled so that money could go toward the Invincible buy. So a carrier had to be delivered by 1988 at the latest in the wake of Invincible being withdrawn.

I wonder what would have happened if the Melbourne had started the refit and during the Falklands come out of refit with another 3 years of life left in her. Would Hawke have had the balls to cancel her replacement if she was at sea when he took over govt, rather than being out of service for 2 years.

 

[TheMann]

^ That's a possibility.

What I have in mind here (I'm sure I said this before, but what the hell) is that Canada buys the ex-HMCS Eagle in 1972 before it goes to the scrapper (the POD for Canadian Power) and shows off that a real flat-top can show its worth by supporting Canadian peacekeepers in Cyprus in 1975. Owing to this, Ark Royal stays in service longer with the RN, decommissioned in 1981 but rapidly reactivated for the Falklands. The Invincible purchase by Australia is canned by the Falklands War, and the usage of carriers by Canada on Cyprus in 1975. Ark Royal is reactivated for fair and heavily refitted, re-entering real RN service in 1986.

Knowing Australia's geopolitical position the Canadian and British carriers showing the worth of them even to a smaller Navy, Australia keeps Melbourne going and orders up a new carrier. Designed in Britain and built in Australia, the new unit is a 40,000-ton carrier with a maximum of 50 aircraft and a crew of 1,500, slightly but not crazily bigger than Melbourne. The old carriers stays operating until the new unit is launched in 1987, but there is a gap between Melbourne's decommissioning in February 1988 and the new ship, Australia, being commissioned in April 1989. (The first and only time both are seen together is the Australian bicentennial ceremonial fleet entrance in January 1988.)

 

[Tonymecury]

I concur with Riain in order for this to occur we require a Frasier government or Hawke with a better understanding of the positives of having a carrier for the Australian military.

My understanding is that both Governments knew the benefits of carriers. They also knew that what was needed was a minimum of three carriers-

One in the Pacific

One in the Indian

One under overhaul.

This was far too high a price to pay.

This led, in part to the decision to go for submarines.

Which eventually led to that periscope photograph of a US carrier taken from torpedoing distance during an exercise.


Tony

Tony