Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

[Zheng He]

according to the Australian Essex proposal it was thought possible to install a version of the C-7, or a stronger version of the C-11 either being 250 feet in length.

Anymore details on that proposal?

 

[bobtdwarf]

Anymore details on that proposal?

a link to it was posted about 10 pages back..

so here is a new link https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=1565492

 

[Riain]

Painful to read on the phone.

 

[Riain]

Page 80.
Operating from the HMAS Melbourne with BS4 catapult, the Skyhawk can be launched in tropical nil wind conditions in the fighter role carrying two 20mm guns and two Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, and in the strike role with a payload of 1,000lbs.

 

[bobtdwarf]

Page 80.
Operating from the HMAS Melbourne with BS4 catapult, the Skyhawk can be launched in tropical nil wind conditions in the fighter role carrying two 20mm guns and two Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, and in the strike role with a payload of 1,000lbs.

sad ain't it?

 

[Riain]

Pages 180-186 are gold.

That's where the US Embassy talk about the mods an F4B needs and the possibility of a C7 cat. Then the minister basically shits on the whole idea as too optimistic.

Para 82 the Minister talks about is on page 49.

 

[Zheng He]

Painful to read on the phone.

Yes...

 

[Zheng He]

I've been spending time fiddling with various CVW configurations, being sure to stick to the post 1975 USN requirement to utilize no more than 80% of the available deck spots and I believe I have come up with a good standard CVW for an ESSEX class carrier post 1975 that would viable into the late 1980s. For the TL I am thinking about in my spare time this does require a couple of aircraft modifications that did not happen OTL:

• Tanker mission to be filled by taking older A-7s like A-7Bs and configuring them for airborne tanking duties, mainly by loading them up with D-704 buddy pods.
• EW/SEAD mission to be filled by taking two seat TA-7 trainers and modifying them with off the shelf avionics and jamming pods and upgrading them so they can employ the AGM-78 Standard ARM, essentially an EA-7
• Photo-reconnaissance mission to be filled by the F-4 squadrons through the acquisition of EMI reconnaissance pods, the same pods employed by RAF Phantoms.

All of the above modifications involve using existing aircraft and existing off the shelf systems to they will be cost effective.

Anyhow, what I came up with is a flexible 57 aircraft air group along these lines:

• 2x VF/VMFA squadrons with 10 F-4 Phantoms per squadron
• 2x VA squadrons with 10 A-7 Corsairs per squadron
• 1x VAQ squadron with 4 EA-7 Electric Corsairs
• 1x VAK squadron with 4 KA-7 Corsairs
• 1x VAW squadron with 4 E-2 Hawkeyes
• 1x HSL squadron with 5 SH-3 Sea Kings

Obviously the E-2s will have to be kept on a deck park (just like the MIDWAY class carriers) and this CVW takes up 84.34 deck spots or just under 80%.

 

[Riain]

2x VF/VMFA squadrons with 10 F-4 Phantoms per squadron

These will need the extended nose-wheel strut and drooping ailerons to operate from Essexes. Which is fine but it means these sqn can't be quickly changed to other carriers.

 

[Zheng He]

These will need the extended nose-wheel strut and drooping ailerons to operate from Essexes. Which is fine but it means these sqn can't be quickly changed to other carriers.

Do you mean like the RN Phantoms?

 

[Riain]

Do you mean like the RN Phantoms?

Yes, according to the documents that the Australian government received.

 

[Zheng He]

Yes, according to the documents that the Australian government received.

So I read the linked document (great stuff, especially the hand written notes) and I can't tell if they mean the F-4s would need to be modified and the ship would need C7 catapults or if they could install C7 catapults instead of modifying the fighters.

 

[Zheng He]

Also, the Australian government document is in regard to the F-4B, I think a lot of those changes (at the least the drooping ailerons and more powerful engines) were put into the F-4J in 1966.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The drooping ailerons were indeed installed on the F-4J, as well as uprated J79s. The F-4S, though, was a much bigger boost to takeoff performance. In a calm at sea level with one 600-gallon tank and a full loadout of AAMs and no afterburner, the F-4S could take off in 4830 feet, compared to 5465 feet for the F-4B and 6030 feet for the F-4J.

So it's entirely likely the solution is just the F-4S, which can easily be crossdecked to and from other carriers.

 

[Zheng He]

And where does the F-4N (the upgraded B models) fit into that spectrum?

 

[CV12Hornet]

And where does the F-4N (the upgraded B models) fit into that spectrum?

Sorry, I don't have any data on the F-4N. Certainly not as good as the F-4S, though, the N was the B upgraded to J standards.

 

[Zheng He]

Sorry, I don't have any data on the F-4N. Certainly not as good as the F-4S, though, the N was the B upgraded to J standards.

Thanks...

 

[Riain]

So I read the linked document (great stuff, especially the hand written notes) and I can't tell if they mean the F-4s would need to be modified and the ship would need C7 catapults or if they could install C7 catapults instead of modifying the fighters.

I read it that a LOT of WOD is needed which is why all 3 options are included, the fear seems to have been that the aircraft options might not be enough and the C7 cat might be needed as well. The wishy-washy option numbers mean that the aircraft might gain as much as 16 knots WOD reduction or as little as 12 knots.

Certainly I think the hope was that the nose-wheel and ailerons would be enough since they were demonstrated and could be easily incorporated into production whereas a C7 cat was very up in the air and would require major refit work to the ship itself.

Also, the Australian government document is in regard to the F-4B, I think a lot of those changes (at the least the drooping ailerons and more powerful engines) were put into the F-4J in 1966.

True, but IIRC the RN argued about if their F4K ordered in 1965 was to be based on the then current F4B or the pending F4J, in the end it was the F4J. Likely Australia would have similar arguments, but they don't appear to have the dramatic increase in takeoff performance that appears to be required.

The drooping ailerons were indeed installed on the F-4J, as well as uprated J79s. The F-4S, though, was a much bigger boost to takeoff performance. In a calm at sea level with one 600-gallon tank and a full loadout of AAMs and no afterburner, the F-4S could take off in 4830 feet, compared to 5465 feet for the F-4B and 6030 feet for the F-4J.

So it's entirely likely the solution is just the F-4S, which can easily be crossdecked to and from other carriers.

It appears from the Australian documents that a little bit of extra takeoff performance wasn't going to cut it, hence the talk about the C7 catapult as well as the 12-16 knot airframe options. The F4S looks to have a fair bit more takeoff performance, but is it the at least 12 and possibly 17+ knots that appears to be needed?

 

[CV12Hornet]

It appears from the Australian documents that a little bit of extra takeoff performance wasn't going to cut it, hence the talk about the C7 catapult as well as the 12-16 knot airframe options. The F4S looks to have a fair bit more takeoff performance, but is it the at least 12 and possibly 17+ knots that appears to be needed?

Only 5 knots, unfortunately.

 

[Riain]

Only 5 knots, unfortunately.

I think they needed at least 12 knots, so the extended nose wheel strut will be a firm requirement.

I get the feeling that this isn't an easy swap'n'go. I think the USN would need to buy the same launch bridles that the RN used and the afterburners would burn and warp the deck like the RN Phantoms did on USS Saratoga in car-quals in 1968, not as bad as the Speys but plenty bad enough to need water cooling like the Ark did.