More Essex class carriers

[Pangur]

Hi
I have been trying to come up with a scenario where there was Essex class carriers in service in 2000. My thinking goes along these lines; After or during the Korean war there is a naval build up by the US allies. With the war in the pacific as a recent reminder the various navies want carriers. To respond to it the US start or rather restart building carriers that are based on the Long Bow Essex. If you had one build in say 1953 then I would think it is possible to have it still in service in 2000 (not necessarily with the original operator). How possible is this scenario?

 

[hugh lupus]

An American version of this perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venerable_(R63)
Make them cheap enough and throw in a few skyhawks and why not

 

[Riain]

The only navies in the postwar era to operate big carriers have been; USN, RN, France, India, Brazil and Russia, with India and Brazil each operating an old RN and French carrier. The Essex class, despite being small for the USN compared to its successors, was a full fleet carrier and thus far too much for most countries.

For example Australia in 1970 had an air force of 100 Mirages and 24 leased Phantoms pending delivery of 24 F111. The CAG of an Essex had 24 F8 and 36 A4, making it half the size of the RAAF before you count the extra aircraft in the base squadrons. Thus a single Essex carrier would totally distort the force structure of the ADF let alone RAN, and would do the same to pretty much most navies and defence forces in the world.

 

[Pangur]

An American version of this perhaps?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Venerable_(R63)
Make them cheap enough and throw in a few skyhawks and why not

Yes, the HMS Hermes is I guess proof the idea works. The hard hit would be to have the US build the ships in the first place .I was going to add the idea of Skyhawks however that was going to take away from having the ship in service in 2000

 

[hugh lupus]

Yes, the HMS Hermes is I guess proof the idea works. The hard hit would be to have the US build the ships in the first place .I was going to add the idea of Skyhawks however that was going to take away from having the ship in service in 2000

We were still using Skyhawks here in 2000.
Riain makes a good point though Give the ships away ,give the aircraft away and you still need money for the upkeep plus a carrier is no good on its own it needs other ships to go with it

 

[Pangur]

We were still using Skyhawks here in 2000.
Riain makes a good point though Give the ships away ,give the aircraft away and you still need money for the upkeep plus a carrier is no good on its own it needs other ships to go with it

Fair comment. I guess that leaves only one way for it to happen and it is fairly ASB. Have a war build carrier transferred to China prior to 1949 and have the communists grab it

 

[hugh lupus]

I'll throw this in for what its worth though its more ASB than possible.
Your pod will need a potentially rich country that is poorly mananaged now ,and goodness knows there are a few of them about
What if it was not poorly managed made good use of its resources ,didnt decend into corruption and rebellion [you know the pattern] .Further give that country ambition to be a regional power and also for your pod to work an American ally ,or former ally and there you have it an essex carrier ,updated no doubt with a small escort fleet ....feel free to disregard

 

[Pangur]

I'll throw this in for what its worth though its more ASB than possible.
Your pod will need a potentially rich country that is poorly mananaged now ,and goodness knows there are a few of them about
What if it was not poorly managed made good use of its resources ,didnt decend into corruption and rebellion [you know the pattern] .Further give that country ambition to be a regional power and also for your pod to work an American ally ,or former ally and there you have it an essex carrier ,updated no doubt with a small escort fleet ....feel free to disregard

I wont be disregarding your suggestion what so ever. What I will be doing if having a think about candidate nations. A serious big thank you for the idea

 

[hugh lupus]

I wont be disregarding your suggestion what so ever. What I will be doing if having a think about candidate nations. A serious big thank you for the idea

Always glad to look after a fellow antipodean

 

[Pangur]

Always glad to look after a fellow antipodean

Much appreciated

Possible candidates for post war built Essex Carriers

South Africa- Have it multiracial and and part of an expanded SEATO, aquires newly build carriers in 1951

Nigeria- Post independence, say 1970 - buys either a late war Essex or a South Africa carriers when SA trades up its carriers for later builds - Invincible class maybe?

Mexico - Early 50`s

Now for left field

Hing Kong Scenario is that the Cultural Revolution really worries the UK and US - will the PRC invade HK? They decide that the best way to provide air power is to go a couple of carriers - land based air bases can either be over run or made untenable by PRC forces close by so they think - If there are carriers full time. The UK can't provide the carriers least ways not that fast, not full time however the US can provide the carriers, the UK the backbone of the crews (ships), the air group is a mixture of UK and US and HK both pay for them and provide the remainder of the crews (ships)

 

[Gunnarnz]

What are the manpower requirements for an Essex-class carrier, and what will that do to the force structure of the client states that you have in mind to receive them?

Wikipedia indicates over 3,000 crew all up, so that's a lot of extra personnel for some of these nations to find. If they're being pulled away from existing assets, then the force structure gets severely distorted. If they're in addition to the existing naval/air establishment, then the cost of operating the carrier goes up considerably.

 

[hugh lupus]

My own preference would be Nigeria... all those oil tankers to protect
3000 is about right for WW2 all those AA guns for example .With upgrades and automation that could be reduced to what level I could not say though

 

[Pangur]

What are the manpower requirements for an Essex-class carrier, and what will that do to the force structure of the client states that you have in mind to receive them?

Wikipedia indicates over 3,000 crew all up, so that's a lot of extra personnel for some of these nations to find. If they're being pulled away from existing assets, then the force structure gets severely distorted. If they're in addition to the existing naval/air establishment, then the cost of operating the carrier goes up considerably.

The nations were picked on the basis of population first and then as per hugh lupus suggestion we assume a well run economy to provide the money. That being the case there is no issue as you suggest. The money is there for both an air force and a navy air arm

My own preference would be Nigeria... all those oil tankers to protect
3000 is about right for WW2 all those AA guns for example .With upgrades and automation that could be reduced to what level I could not say though

I was thinking that in this scenario Nigeria discovers oil very quickly and gets rich very quickly.

 

[hugh lupus]

I was thinking that in this scenario Nigeria discovers oil very quickly and gets rich very quickly.[/QUOTE]

All you now need to do is give it a long term stable government ...good luck

 

[Gunnarnz]

...we assume a well run economy to provide the money. That being the case there is no issue as you suggest.

I think you may be underestimating the requirements of operating a carrier group. A carrier does not operate alone; it also requires escorts and supply ships and a considerable shore establishment (without including the air group and it's requirements). An important issue is being avoided by assuming a well-run economy where historically there has not been one. To simply say "there is no issue" is to ignore a great deal, and probably a good many butterflies.
If we assume that the carrier can operate with only 1500 crew, and that a total of 10 escorts and supply ships will be needed for each carrier with an average crew of 100 each, that is still a great many trained people that are needed (who in turn have to be drawn from the portion of the population which is able to supply people able to master technical skills). To put this in perspective, the Royal Navy has around 27,000 personnel (excluding Royal Marines). Each carrier would require roughly 10% of that strength, which is a non-trivial investment of resources.
Operating a carrier also assumes that you have something you want to do with it; nations don't expend all that time and effort on a carrier just to have an impressive boat (with the possible exception of Thailand). A carrier implies a perceived need to operate aircraft a long way from ones borders, which in turn implies interests that are not merely local. It would help a great deal if you could specify what motivates such an expenditure.
So there are a couple of big questions that need to be answered before we can take this seriously, I think.

Specifically:

• What is the POD that results in the funds and manpower being available for such an investment?
• What is the strategic situation that results in such assets being desirable?

 

[JacktheCat]

The only navies in the postwar era to operate big carriers have been; USN, RN, France, India, Brazil and Russia, with India and Brazil each operating an old RN and French carrier. The Essex class, despite being small for the USN compared to its successors, was a full fleet carrier and thus far too much for most countries.

Don't forget Spain and the Kingdom of Thailand. Thailand was, for a number of years, was the only country in Asia with an aircraft carrier)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTMS_Chakri_Naruebet

Though, the white-elephant status of the HTMS Chakri is a perfect example of what a monumental money pit carriers are.

 

[Riain]

Don't get me wrong, carriers are great and there should be more of them, but they should be one of the last things a country buys and only for clearly defined and practical strategic reasons. If they are not used to full effect they are a criminal misappropriation of resources.

 

[Pangur]

Don't get me wrong, carriers are great and there should be more of them, but they should be one of the last things a country buys and only for clearly defined and practical strategic reasons. If they are not used to full effect they are a criminal misappropriation of resources.

As much as I would like to come up with a reason for Nigeria I can't come up with one right now. That leaves the Hong Kong idea. Protecting your air power seems a good practical reason. How to manage the necessary escort ships for them may not be that hard as the carriers would have to deal with the PRC navy of the mid 60`s, - not that powerful a force. Refueling is not issue either as it can quite happily return to port and refuel/re-stock. The idea is that the carrier functions as floating air base and there are no plans for it to go very far

 

[hugh lupus]

As much as I would like to come up with a reason for Nigeria I can't come up with one right now. That leaves the Hong Kong idea. Protecting your air power seems a good practical reason. How to manage the necessary escort ships for them may not be that hard as the carriers would have to deal with the PRC navy of the mid 60`s, - not that powerful a force. Refueling is not issue either as it can quite happily return to port and refuel/re-stock. The idea is that the carrier functions as floating air base and there are no plans for it to go very far

I don't think the Hong Kong idea would fly [pun intended] pre 1997 the British would not allow it .Post 1997 the Chinese wouldn't
Hmmm to get the idea to work you need to have the requirement to project power well beyond your borders. [As well as a barrel full of money]
So if you have say a stable rich Nigeria [just to run with one country] it would need to have unstable relations with another country/countries
Pods are starting to build up here aren't they.
Lets say an uber facist south africa? which enforces stability on the rest of central Africa by default. pod there should be post war say 1947 after the elections. or a religious messiah coming south [aka the mad mahdi option]
This is a lot of pods and some research you have to do
I've been to Nigeria albeit many years ago and we have a board member who knows a bit about the place as well

 

[Pangur]

RE HK; If you go another look at the post where I first suggested HK I tried to construct a scenario where the carriers have the blessing on the UK.

As for Nigeria, there is no question that they could have had the money and the people to pull it off. however there is still the need for a damn good reason unless it is to face off against the South Africa that you speculated about?