HMS Hermes to Australia?

[Riain]

The 1966 Defence White Paper that ended carrier aviation in the RN indicated that HMS Hermes was surplus. In 1968 the Hermes was in Australian waters and conducted flight operations with RAN Skyhawks and Trackers, Hermes was offered to the RAN but at the time the offer was declined due to operating cost.

If the Australian Government took up the offer would it go through or would the change of Government in 1970, which reversed the decision on RN carrier aviation, rescind the offer?

 

[alspug]

I have to say the HMS Hermes would not have been of that much improvement or assistance to the RAN . yes she is bigger , faster and has greater capacity and in Australian service could have had a useful air group of for example , 16 to 20 A-4 Skyhawk's , 10 S-2 Trackers and 5 Sea King . The improved catapults and larger flight deck may have improved safety but overall she is still too small to be of significant use .

I am a massive fan of the A-4 Skyhawk and feel that a mid 1980's upgrade of 24 RAN Skyhawk's to the standards of the Project Kahu would be advantageous . the introduction of the GE F404 engine instead of the original P&W J 52 would also be interesting . If you remove the Trackers and introduce the RN AEW Seaking then even in the Early 90's the carrier would have been an interesting addition to most operations .

With an air group of 5 AEW Sea king and 5 ASW Sea King backed up by 26 to 30 A-4G improved HMS Hermes would have made a potent addition to the RAN despite her inadequate size .


I honestly think the point in time for Australia to buy a better carrier was when the US Navy was thinking of removing the Essex class from service , one of the long hull variants with the full modification's of angled flight deck etc would have been fantastic . With one of those carriers the operation of FA-18 hornets may have been possible . mind you the crew needs would have been excessive .

 

[TheMann]

Too small and too old to be a long-term solution. If Australia wants to stay in the carrier game for any length of times after the 1970s, they need to invest in a new carrier. Hermes is a short-term solution at best, because of its age.

 

[Riain]

I was thinking more about what Britain would do. The Hermes because a Commando Carrier in 1973 and an ASW carrier in 1976 and a Harrier carrier in 1980. How will Britain cover these roles? Will the requirement mean that the Conservative Government will withdraw the offer of Hermes is she hasn't been delivered to cover these requirements?

As for Australia, it all depends on how you define 'long-term'.

The RAN/Govt was talking about replacing the Melbourne almost as soon as she entered service, it was decided in 1959 that she would no longer operate fixed wing aircraft and 27 Wessex were ordered, but this was rescinded in 1964 and the first batch of Skyhawks and Trackers was ordered. The talk went on all through the 70s and by 1980 it was expected that she would last until about 1984 and in 1981 she went in for a planned $12 million refit. It was at this time that the Invincible saga occurred and the refit was cancelled, then the offer was pulled and by that time the RAN had been without a carrier for 18 months and wasn't likely to get one for another year. It was in this vortex of factors that Australia lost carrier capability.

If the Hermes was picked up in maybe 1970 she will last until 1990 or thereabouts, so these discussions will not occur until the 1980s. Maybe she and her CAG won't get replaced in that timeframe, but perhaps they will with something like todays LHDs.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I was thinking more about what Britain would do. The Hermes because a Commando Carrier in 1973 and an ASW carrier in 1976 and a Harrier carrier in 1980. How will Britain cover these roles? Will the requirement mean that the Conservative Government will withdraw the offer of Hermes is she hasn't been delivered to cover these requirements?

They will keep Albion in service until the early 1980s. IOTL she was withdrawn from service when Hermes completed her conversion to a commando carrier.

 

[Archibald]

Hermes is a short-term solution at best, because of its age

India may disagree with this opinion

 

[Cryhavoc101]

India may disagree with this opinion

Its a shame the Colossus and Centaurs were not built to last!

Britain in 1966 has 4 Centaurs

Centaur
Albion
Bulwark
Hermes

I know that Hermes was effectively a few years younger as it was not completed till 1959 however Bulwark was active until the early 70s and due to financial and other reasons was not really kept in a refitted state (there was talk of refitting her for the Falklands war in 82 but years of neglect would have made it expensive and drawn out - however it could have been done).

So if necessary the UK could have used 1 or more of the 'other' Centaurs or offered those ships to the RAN

Perhaps in time the Australian ship becomes a Harrier carrier in line with OTL HMS Hermes?

So given a POD of 1966 HMS Bulwark is given a deeper refit for service into the 70s and then another 'HMS Hermes' style refit in 1980 to fit a ski ramp

As for Air groups - Hermes was able to operate 26 Harriers and 10 Helos in 1982

So I can see Hermes in RAN service able to operate an airgroup of up to 30 Sky Hawks/Trackers and some Helos - with the potential to replace the Skyhawks with Harriers in the 80s.

Perhaps a Ski-ramp and Angled deck Catapult/Traps could be used to allow the continued use of Trackers?

 

[Deleted member 6086]

The ex-Hermes has operated in Indian service to this day, so I think the age issue shouldn't be too pressing for Australia.

 

[TheMann]

^ India has far lower per-unit manpower costs than Australia does, and the ship today is very, very old. Older vessels simply due to age will end up with higher maintenance and manpower costs.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Centaur was refitted with steam catapults in the 1950s and operated as a strike carrier until 1965 when she went into reserve, but wasn't scrapped until the early 1970s.

Theoretically the RAN could have bought her and Hermes at any time between 1966 and 1971 to replace Sydney and Melbourne respectively, while the RN ran on Albion and Bulwark as aircraft carriers. In turn India or a South American nation might buy Melbourne.

However, as has already been pointed out one SCB.27C Essex would have been better than both. Although the RAN might struggle to recruit enough men to operate it and the necessary shore organisation to support it even if the Australian Government could afford the refit and the extra aircraft.

Though I like the idea of Australia and France doing a joint modernisation of their F-8 Crusaders or jointly producing the Mirage G to replace them.

 

[TheMann]

The simple reality is that carriers are expensive, and if Australia is gonna remain in the carrier business they'll need to buy new ones at some point, and not new as in beat-to-crap-by-the-RN-first new, as in shiny new just-came-out-of-the-shipyard new, but that's expensive.

The idea of small carriers like the Clemenceau class is such a big potential that I'm amazed nobody is running with it here. Australian shipyards I'd bet could make such a vessel, and it would save on maintenance (and probably manpower) compared to an old British carrier. License-building an existing design saves you money in the design stage, and a diesel-fueled machine like a Clemenceau will be cheaper to run than an old oil-fueled brute like the Hermes.

 

[Alien and Sedition Bat]

What on earth would Australia use the carrier for? The only thing I can think of would be to reverse the nationalist coup in Fiji in 1987. And if India was not willing to send its navy there (its first carrier, formerly the Hermes, had been commissioned earlier that year) to protect the Indo-Fijian plurality, why should Australia?

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

What on earth would Australia use the carrier for? The only thing I can think of would be to reverse the nationalist coup in Fiji in 1987. And if India was not willing to send its navy there (its first carrier, formerly the Hermes, had been commissioned earlier that year) to protect the Indo-Fijian plurality, why should Australia?

That may be a good question, but the Aussies ran aircraft carriers for a while and seriously wanted to continue.
I suspect the perceived Indonesian threat is the biggest single incentive for force projection.

The simple reality is that carriers are expensive, and if Australia is gonna remain in the carrier business they'll need to buy new ones at some point, and not new as in beat-to-crap-by-the-RN-first new, as in shiny new just-came-out-of-the-shipyard new, but that's expensive.

The idea of small carriers like the Clemenceau class is such a big potential that I'm amazed nobody is running with it here. Australian shipyards I'd bet could make such a vessel, and it would save on maintenance (and probably manpower) compared to an old British carrier. License-building an existing design saves you money in the design stage, and a diesel-fueled machine like a Clemenceau will be cheaper to run than an old oil-fueled brute like the Hermes.

Hmmm... That's an interesting thought. However, would the Aussies be content flying SuperEtendards and Crusaders? Can you fly anything more modern (and larger) off a Clemenceau? Would they have to add a ramp and go with Harriers or something? (Not that that would give improved performance, but at least they'd be newer.) Would Australia buying a Clemenceau encourage other mid-ranked nations (e.g. Brazil) to do so? If so, would a larger market for that size of carrier encourage Britain or France to produce a modern jet that would fly from one?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The simple reality is that carriers are expensive, and if Australia is gonna remain in the carrier business they'll need to buy new ones at some point, and not new as in beat-to-crap-by-the-RN-first new, as in shiny new just-came-out-of-the-shipyard new, but that's expensive.

The idea of small carriers like the Clemenceau class is such a big potential that I'm amazed nobody is running with it here. Australian shipyards I'd bet could make such a vessel, and it would save on maintenance (and probably manpower) compared to an old British carrier. License-building an existing design saves you money in the design stage, and a diesel-fueled machine like a Clemenceau will be cheaper to run than an old oil-fueled brute like the Hermes.

If the Australians were going to buy French then the ship would have been based on the 35,000 ton PA58 design. The British did study carriers in the 28,000 to 35,000 ton ranges between abandoning the 1952 Carrier and the CVA.01 project. They might offer an updated version of that to the Australians.

Another possibility is the American SCB.100 anti-submarine carrier (CVS) which was intended to replace the Essex class employed in that role. At one time the Americans were planning to have 6 CVS in the 1970s to protect their attack carriers. IIRC enough S-3A Vikings were built to support an front-line of 120 (in 12 squadrons of 10) because each of the 6 would carry 20 of them.

Or 10 years later an American CVV.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

What on earth would Australia use the carrier for? The only thing I can think of would be to reverse the nationalist coup in Fiji in 1987. And if India was not willing to send its navy there (its first carrier, formerly the Hermes, had been commissioned earlier that year) to protect the Indo-Fijian plurality, why should Australia?

Because Admirals want the biggest and best toys to play with!

To be serious there might have been a situation where they wouldn't have had an American aircraft carrier to provide cover for them or with the British withdrawal from East of Suez no Royal Navy aircraft carriers either.

Also it would have been a political. Aircraft carriers are as much instruments of diplomacy as instruments of war. That applies to ones friends as much as your enemies. Having an aircraft carrier might make the Americans and the ASEAN countries pay more attention to Australia.

It is also between navies as between countries. If the RAN kept an aircraft carrier then it might have more influence over the USN. E.g. if they had had an aircraft carrier for the last 30 years it would have been more likely for an Australian admiral to be in command in exercises with other navies.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

If the Australians were going to buy French then the ship would have been based on the 35,000 ton PA58 design. The British did study carriers in the 28,000 to 35,000 ton ranges between abandoning the 1952 Carrier and the CVA.01 project. They might offer an updated version of that to the Australians.

Another possibility is the American SCB.100 anti-submarine carrier (CVS) which was intended to replace the Essex class employed in that role. At one time the Americans were planning to have 6 CVS in the 1970s to protect their attack carriers. IIRC enough S-3A Vikings were built to support an front-line of 120 (in 12 squadrons of 10) because each of the 6 would carry 20 of them.

Or 10 years later an American CVV.

Err... Doing a quick Google, it would seem that the PA58 was the code for the Verdun, which was to be 45kt, not 35 kt. Note, too, that the project was cancelled as being prohibitively expensive by the French - who have a much higher tolerance for expensive war machines than most countries.

I don't doubt that the Brits had lots of paper studies, but there is a definite advantage to going with something that actually exists, rather than what might, possibly eventually, exist (with overruns and new design flaws).

Again, while the US might have studied alternate carriers in an interesting range, they never actually built any, and the Aussies would have been stuck without any at all, if they tried buying one. (I also tried Googling SCB.100 and didn't come up with anything interesting.)

 

[Riain]

IOTL the RAN rejected the Hermes because of the running cost, so anything with greater running costs than the Hermes is automatically out of contention. I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that the RAN will stretch to Hermes if the deal is right, but to both build a big new carrier and accept big running costs is not feasible.

In addition there were possible actions that might make the government more amenable to getting a bigger, more capable carrier with greater running costs, such as a deployment to Vietnam.

 

[Mumbles]

I have to say the HMS Hermes would not have been of that much improvement or assistance to the RAN . yes she is bigger , faster and has greater capacity and in Australian service could have had a useful air group of for example , 16 to 20 A-4 Skyhawk's , 10 S-2 Trackers and 5 Sea King . The improved catapults and larger flight deck may have improved safety but overall she is still too small to be of significant use .

I am a massive fan of the A-4 Skyhawk and feel that a mid 1980's upgrade of 24 RAN Skyhawk's to the standards of the Project Kahu would be advantageous . the introduction of the GE F404 engine instead of the original P&W J 52 would also be interesting .

Talking of numbers though, by the early 80's the RAN didn't have 16-20 Skyhawks - by the end of 1980 they only had 10 left of the 20 procured.

24 was the total number of A-4's the RNZAF procured (including the 10 RAN survivors), but the maximum they ever had on strength at one time was 22.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

IOTL the RAN rejected the Hermes because of the running cost, so anything with greater running costs than the Hermes is automatically out of contention. I don't think it is beyond the realms of possibility that the RAN will stretch to Hermes if the deal is right, but to both build a big new carrier and accept big running costs is not feasible.

In addition there were possible actions that might make the government more amenable to getting a bigger, more capable carrier with greater running costs, such as a deployment to Vietnam.

Okay... if the RAN and the Australian government preceded with the purchase of the now HMAS HERMES, how could they conduct a rebuild to lower the operating costs? Now a rebuild should be factored into the purchase price and from memory the British economy was tanking at the time - so the possibility exists for this to occur.

When would you look at deploying MELBOURNE to Yankee station?

 

[Riain]

Okay... if the RAN and the Australian government preceded with the purchase of the now HMAS HERMES, how could they conduct a rebuild to lower the operating costs? Now a rebuild should be factored into the purchase price and from memory the British economy was tanking at the time - so the possibility exists for this to occur.

When would you look at deploying MELBOURNE to Yankee station?

I don't know if a rebuild could be undertaken to lower manning costs. However the Type 984 3D radar and ADWAS might be too much for the RANs requirements and incompatible with the rest of the RAN so it might be removed in the RAN refit, which should free up some crew requirement.

The Melbourne with her Sea Venom/Gannet/Wessex CAG escorted HMAS Sydney on her 1st, 3rd and 4th trooping voyages to Vietnam but stayed outside the Market Time area. She was also offered by the RAN in March 66 as an ASW asset on Yankee station and the USN requested her in April 67 as an ASW asset.

In my mind the Melbourne could have escorted Sydney on her 3rd trooping trip in April-May 1966, stayed on for a war cruise doing Market Time, ASW and possibly CAS for 1ATF, escorted Sydney in the AO again in June 1966 and left with her on about the 8th of June. There are several instances of this sort of bursts of activity by the Sydney that the Melbourne could have covered, like the combined 5th and 6th voyage where Sydney went to Singapore to change battalions rather than Australia in April-May 1967.

Of course this would be far easier to arrange if the RAN hadn't been hamstrung by the 1959 decision to make Melbourne an ASW Helo carrier and instead bought Skyhawks and Trackers at that stage.