Essex class carriers in other navies

[Delta Force]

I don't think the Essex class is suitable for navies other than the USN and perhaps Britain and France. Britain is a stretch since they want all weather fighters and attack aircraft, and the F8 and A4/7 don't really fit the bill. This leaves only France, which had 3 carriers throughout the 60s so probably doesn't need another one.

The French aircraft carriers were rather small. The largest one they operated before the Charles de Gaulle was the Béarn, an aging ship converted from a Normandie class super-dreadnought under the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty. Before the Clemenceau class entered service in the 1960s, the French had three light aircraft carriers: one Colossus and two Independence class ships.

There was certainly room in the French Navy for something with more capabilities, as well as a general increase in the number of aircraft carriers.

 

[Riain]

The USN used almost all of its Essex class carriers postwar, so they won't become available for use by other navies until the 60s. By then the die had been cast and there were precious few navies operating carriers operating carriers, and even less requiring a big carrier like the Essex class.

 

[MattII]

It's also not totally out of the question that the Canadians or the Australians might each have purchased an Essex class carrier vs the carriers they actually acquired post WW2.

The Essexes require twice the crew of the Centaurs, and with the populations standing at only just below ten (Australia) and just over fifteen (Canada) million, I don't think they'd be wanting very big ships, especially not as they wouldn't actually have any more use for them.

 

[Have Blue-117]

What about Argentina and Brazil, they operated British carriers in OTL so I don't think an Essex or two sent their way is too big of a stretch.

 

[Riain]

It's not the size of the ships crew that concerns me as much as the size of the Fleet Air Arm. There is no point in changing from HMAS Melbourne to an Essex if you aren't going to take advantage of the ships ability to operate a CVW much larger than Melbourne's. In the late 60s an CVW of an Essex class consisted of a pair of F8K/J Crusader squadrons and a pair of A7A/B squadrons plus cats and dogs to a total of about 70 aircraft.

Now I imagine Australia would drop that back to about 50 aircraft: 1 sqn Wessex/Sea King, 1 sqn Trackers + flight of Tracers, 1 big sqn Crusaders and 2 sqns of Skyhawks. That would mean that the RAN would need 30 or so Crusaders, 45 or so Skyhawks, 25 Trackers and Tracers and 15 or so big ASW Helos.

IOTL the RAN-FAA has 20 Skyhawks, 16 Trackers, 27 declining to 10 big ASW Helos. The OTL RAAF had 110 Mirages and 24 F4E/F111C and 24 Orion.

So in order to operate a single Essex carrier the RAN would have to expand the FAA to 3/5 the size of the RAAF. That is what I call an unbalanced force structure.

 

[Petike]

"Psht, hey you !"
"Who ? Me ?"
"Yes, indeed. Do you have a navy ?"
"Well, yes..."
"Do you need aircraft carriers ?"
"Hm.. Um... Actually, yes..."
"Would you like to buy some from us Brits ?"
"Sure thing."
"The only way is Essex !"



Kill me !

 

[Delta Force]

"Psht, hey you !"
"Who ? Me ?"
"Yes, indeed. Do you have a navy ?"
"Well, yes..."
"Do you need aircraft carriers ?"
"Hm.. Um... Actually, yes..."
"Would you like to buy some from us Brits ?"
"Sure thing."
"The only way is Essex !"



Kill me !

Essex is actually an American design, but I can see why you would be confused. Here's how to tell the difference:

The Kingdom of Essex was a powerful state that once ruled London, future capital of the world's greatest Empire. Essex County, Massachusetts, is home to Salem, where the witch hunt was invented.

 

[Pangur]

One important point in my OP seems to have gotten lost which is that the Essex's are used as ASW carriers by European navies. I was not suggesting there use as strike carriers or anything even like that

 

[Delta Force]

One important point in my OP seems to have gotten lost which is that the Essex's are used as ASW carriers by European navies. I was not suggesting there use as strike carriers or anything even like that

They are on the rather large side of things for ASW carriers. A large complement of helicopters and turboprop aircraft can be operated off of smaller World War II designs.

 

[Riain]

They are on the rather large side of things for ASW carriers. A large complement of helicopters and turboprop aircraft can be operated off of smaller World War II designs.

And by the 60s ASW helicopters are mature enough to operate from frigates and destroyers.

 

[Delta Force]

And by the 60s ASW helicopters are mature enough to operate from frigates and destroyers.

It's not really helicopter technology as much as the development of the bear trap hauldown device. The RCN carried out the first helicopter landing on a small ship after equipping the World War II era frigate HMCS Buckingham with a helicopter landing pad and having a Sikorsky HO4S-3 land on it. The bear trap just made things a lot easier, as did the addition of helicopter hangers and other advanced facilities.

Helicopters also made hybrid ships a lot more practical, but they were cruiser-carriers instead of battle-carriers (more properly, helicopter cruisers).

 

[Atomo]

Pull it back a bit further.

What if the Essex class were sold to the British and French as a part of Lend Lease? A bit far fetched but both combatants needed carriers and once the Pacific battlefleet was built keeping production full tilt for the British and French a few each would be a simple thing (even if they only get Reprisal and Iwo Jima, one each). Four would negate the need for the Malta class in the British Navy at a fraction of the cost and mean a fresh post war carrier fleet.

Another more interesting bit. The British get the Essex class (never mind how). How do they upgrade them? Do they follow the SCB program or keep it 'in house' so to speak? If these carriers are new builds in 1944-45 they could potentially serve into the 1980s with ease.

 

[Riain]

It's not really helicopter technology as much as the development of the bear trap hauldown device. The RCN carried out the first helicopter landing on a small ship after equipping the World War II era frigate HMCS Buckingham with a helicopter landing pad and having a Sikorsky HO4S-3 land on it. The bear trap just made things a lot easier, as did the addition of helicopter hangers and other advanced facilities.

Helicopters also made hybrid ships a lot more practical, but they were cruiser-carriers instead of battle-carriers (more properly, helicopter cruisers).

Early postwar ASW aircraft operated in pairs, one as the hunter and the other as the killer, this applies to early ASW helicopters as well. The Wasp and DASH were killer helicopters, carrying only the weapon. But by the 60s the Wessex and Sea King were operating as hunter/killers in a single airframe and by the early 70s these had gotten even smaller with the SH2, Lynx and AB205ASW.

 

[DD951]

During the 1960s, the US actually offered to sell the RAN a -27C Essex, but the RAN turned the offer down, when after studying the matter, they found that the additional manning & operating costs (plus presumably enlarging the RAN FAA to take advantage of the extra capacity & ability to operate better aircraft) would have meant that were they to acquire & operate one, then with the budgets & manpower pool that would have been politically doable, they simply would have not had enough left over to be able to do all the other things that they needed to.