Australia get's HMS Hermes

[abc123]

Also, what about buying ( IMO they could get him allmost for free ) HMS Eagle from UK in 1974?

OK, Eagle has dougle larger complement than Melbourne, but OTOH, it's much more capable ship, it can operate Skyhawks and PHANTOMS. Even maybe Hawkeyes.

It can give a real carrier capability to RAN for next 10-15 years.

 

[chris N]

I am not sure that they could get the HMS Eagle for free but the cost would not be high. It would also give Australia the experience of operating a fully capable carrier that could carry out strike missions as well as ASW.
This might result in Australia eventually replacing it with another carrier that was capable of operating conventional jet aircraft rather than the Harrier.

 

[abc123]

I am not sure that they could get the HMS Eagle for free but the cost would not be high. It would also give Australia the experience of operating a fully capable carrier that could carry out strike missions as well as ASW.
This might result in Australia eventually replacing it with another carrier that was capable of operating conventional jet aircraft rather than the Harrier.

The main problem as I can see it is that they are very manpower intensive. And I don't know how to solve that problem.

 

[abc123]

Numbers are intresting. If current carrier of QE class costs about 2,5 billions of pounds, that money in 1982 was worth about 880 millions pounds. And the cost of single brand-new Invincible class small carrier was about 215 milions.
So, that means that for buying ONE new CTOL pretty large aircraft carrier ( OK, maybe Australia would bought somewhat smaller carrier, but nontheless ) you can buy about 4 small V/STOL carriers. OK, they have smaller capabilities, but IMO they are enough for Australia. Also, single carrier is after all available only about 2/3 of time.
About complement, one large carrier surely is more efficient, but I doubt that you can have CTOL carrier ( 1990s technology ) below 2000 persons. And that's crew for 2 smaller carriers.
Simply, smaller carriers are that what Australia needs.

And IMO, it would be the best choice if Australia in 80s orders a new Invincible class carrier for RAN.

 

[Matt Wiser]

The Aussies were offered a refurbished Essex class ship from the USN in the 1960s, IIRC from various readings. The offer included F-8s and A-4s to form the air wing. Unfortunately, the offer had to be declined due to manpower issues.

 

[chris N]

Improved technology has reduced the manpower need to run aircraft carriers. For instance the new US Navy carriers will need only 2/3rds the manpower to operate them than the Nimitz class required. Thus you could have Australia buy a larger model carrier than the Invincible.

There are a lot of Royal Navy officers that would say that the Invincible class carrier is just not capable of doing the job. It is very difficult to operate in rough seas compared to the new carrier being built for the Royal Navy.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

There are a lot of Royal Navy officers that would say that the Invincible class carrier is just not capable of doing the job. It is very difficult to operate in rough seas compared to the new carrier being built for the Royal Navy.

The larger the ship, the easier it can operate in heavy seas.
An example of that is how 30 knot cruisers can/could outpace 35 knot destroyers in heavy seas. As the QE's are bigger, they'll probably ride heavy seas better then the Invincibles.

Other then that, it seems bull to me.
The Invincibles were built for ASW in the North Atlantic and operated just fine during the Falklands.
If anything the RN was infamous for doing flight operations from the Invincibles in heavier sea states then the USN with their giant CVN's, but that would probably mostly be because of doctrine/training, not equipment.

A job the Invincibles aren't capable of - from the top of my head - is that of being a strike carrier with AEW aircraft. Doesn't have anything to do with weather or rough seas but is because it's not designed to be that.

 

[abc123]

Other then that, it seems bull to me.
The Invincibles were built for ASW in the North Atlantic and operated just fine during the Falklands.
If anything the RN was infamous for doing flight operations from the Invincibles in heavier sea states then the USN with their giant CVN's, but that would probably mostly be because of doctrine/training, not equipment.

I agree.

 

[abc123]

Improved technology has reduced the manpower need to run aircraft carriers. For instance the new US Navy carriers will need only 2/3rds the manpower to operate them than the Nimitz class required. Thus you could have Australia buy a larger model carrier than the Invincible.

True, but that costs. I was searching for most-affordable solution for Australia.

 

[MacCaulay]

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

uh...I think you're missing the point here: carriers are cool.

 

[Riain]

uh...I think you're missing the point here: carriers are cool.

I think coolness is as good a criteria as any to acquire military gear, things are cool for a reason you know!

Just a word on force structure, Australia had/s a force structure about 55% Army 25% RAAF, 20% RAN. The RAAF in the 60s bought 116 Mirages and 24 F111s (which were stopgapped by 24 F4Es 1970-73). An Essex or Eagle (both of which have had full and busy service lives by the time the RAN got a look in) would require an FAA to be at least 50% of RAAF combat aircraft strength, so the national force structure would be Army 55%, RAAF 25%, RAN-FAA 11%, rest of RAN including the carrier crew itself 9%. Can anyone else see what is wrong with this picture?

 

[chris N]

Riain, I can see your point that there would not be enough personnel to man the rest of the fleet. Modernization of the carrier would reduce the amount of personnel required to man the carrier. Currently the new US Nuclear carriers will have achieved a 40% savings in personnel to man them.
This would reduce a carriers personnel requirement from 5,000 to 3,000.And that is without a loss of any aircraft strength.
So even if the RAN was to operate a modernized carrier it still would absorb a fair size amount of manpower.
Still with modernization one could have a carrier if one was willing to recruit more personnel.

 

[abc123]

I think coolness is as good a criteria as any to acquire military gear, things are cool for a reason you know!

Just a word on force structure, Australia had/s a force structure about 55% Army 25% RAAF, 20% RAN. The RAAF in the 60s bought 116 Mirages and 24 F111s (which were stopgapped by 24 F4Es 1970-73). An Essex or Eagle (both of which have had full and busy service lives by the time the RAN got a look in) would require an FAA to be at least 50% of RAAF combat aircraft strength, so the national force structure would be Army 55%, RAAF 25%, RAN-FAA 11%, rest of RAN including the carrier crew itself 9%. Can anyone else see what is wrong with this picture?

Well, the thing is- if you want to have a capability like CTOL carrier is, you have to be ready to make some sacrifices. And one such sacrifice is that you must be ready to increase military budget and hire new men in RAN.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

I think that we have established that the RAN is capable of operating a larger CTOL carrier, however in order to do so the ADF will require a force restructure. Consequently the issue then becomes, we require a POD that requires the RAN to maintain a fixed wing capability. So we would be looking for a possible conflict, issue within our area.

 

[Riain]

If someone can do a realistic TL I`d like to see it, but personally I can`t reasilitically see us operating much more than a Centaur. In a perfect world said Centaur would operate a multi-role version of the Crusader and transition to the Hornet in the 80s. But the problem is that in the real world from the 60s you either have to go massive or stay small and accept Harriers if you want to build a new carrier, there is no good middle ground, unfortunately.

 

[abc123]

I think that we have established that the RAN is capable of operating a larger CTOL carrier, however in order to do so the ADF will require a force restructure. Consequently the issue then becomes, we require a POD that requires the RAN to maintain a fixed wing capability. So we would be looking for a possible conflict, issue within our area.

I said long time ago that only such conflict is with Indonesia about Western Papua and later about East Timor.

 

[Riain]

Such a conflict could be fought comfortably by the RAAF from land bases.

 

[StevoJH]

The trouble is, Hermes was old and manpower requierments would be larger than for Melbourne.

The RAN cannot crew Hermes.

Crew Size:
- Hermes - 2,100 (including air group?)
- Melbourne - 1,350 (including air group)
- Invincible 1,051 (including air group)

HMAS Melbourne was decommissioned in May 1982, Hermes was in need of a refit after the Falklands. Since she wasnt long for service in the RN she got a 4 month refit after the Falklands. It should be noted that before delivery to India she had a long (2 year?) refit.

Would the RAN even have a Melbourne size crew available by the time she is ready let alone a crew large enough for a Centaur?

Remember, she wasnt actually offered to the RAN until 1983, 12 months or so after HMAS Melbourne was retired. By then it was probably close to too late.

The only realistic possibility (in terms of crewing) would be Australia taking delivery of Illustrious or Ark Royal with the RN ordering a 4th carrier of the class. However unless the RN offered to transfer the ship at the knockdown price they originally offered Invincible at.....and remembering that they would have made a loss on that arrangement....its a no go.

 

[Dilvish]

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.

The A-4 might be a cheaper plane to operate. The A-4 might also have a greater payload and range. The Harrier is better for air to air combat and eliminates the need for a catapult (unless other fixed wing aircraft are also used). The Harrier is a much better choice if the carrier is expected to face hostile aircraft.

 

[Dilvish]

Torpedoing distance? Onslow got to within 300 meters of the Carl Vinson at RIMPAC 98. That's closer than torpedo shot range. At that range against an aircraft carrier, you couldn't possibly miss.

By not having carriers, Australia and Canada avoid having their carriers photographed in compromising positions by USN SNNs (or NATO subs in general for Canada).