Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

bd popeye said:

I once read when the USN was retiring CVA-42 the RAN was offered her but turned her down. However she was in very poor condition. Is there any truth to this at all? I can find no source to back this statement up. Also how may have the RAN outfitted such a large CV?

Click to expand...

Hi Popeye,

I'm unaware of any offer of FD Roosevelt (CV-42) and I can't see that the RAN would have had the personnel to man her or support a decent airgroup for a ship this size.

Over the years though, there were several proposals to replace Melbourne (CVL-21) with an ex USN modernised Essex class CV. In 1959 the government of the day decided that Melbourne would be unable to operate the next generation of naval aircraft and that it would operate as an ASW helicopter carrier only after 1963. Wessex helos were ordered but the FAA continued to operate its existing Sea Venoms and Gannets and it looked for ways to get the government to change its mind. During this period the USN apparently offered to make arrangements for Melbourne to be replaced by an American carrier, believed to be USS Hancock. The airgroup for the ex US carrier (too small to call it a wing!) would have been basically an enlarged version of what was eventually embarked on Melbourne (A4G Skyhawks, S2E Trackers and Wessex helos) plus the E1 Tacer to provide an early warning capability. At one stage however, the CNS proposed the purchase of 28 F4B Phantom IIs, 24 S2E Trackers and a number of E1 Tracers for a 'modernised Oriskany' type carrier to enter service in 1968. Doubts were raised about the ability of the Phantom to operate at full load from these ships and it is likely that the Skyhawk would have been operated instead.

Source: Flying Stations, A Story of Australian Naval Aviation, Australian Naval Museum, 1998
The Albatross and the Eagle, Maritime Stance, David Wilson, Defence Force Academy, 2003

This didn't occur but the navy succeeded in convincing the government to allow it to continue fixed wing flying with its existing aircraft and Melbourne operated a composite squadron of Sea Venom fighters and Gannet ASW aircraft plus a squadron of Wessex ASW helos. In 1964 the RAN put forward a proposal to buy a modernised Essex class carrier but it was rejected. The government did approve the purchase of S2E Trackers to replace the Gannets and A4G Skyhawks to replace the Sea Venoms. The airgroup remained small and the last time I went onboard a few years before she decommissioned she had a complement of just 8 Skyhawks, 4 Trackers, 5 Sea Kings and 2 Wessex.

Before the Invincible fiasco the RAN had specifically ruled out a conventional carrier (i.e. catapults and arrestor wires) to replace Melbourne and it looked at the USN Iwo Jima class LPH, the Italian Garibaldi, the Gibbs and Cox design for a Sea Control Ship (similar to the VSTOL carrier later built for the Spanish Navy), A modified Tarawa optimised for aviation, and the Invincible class.

Also, has the RAN ever inquired to purchased a retire Tarawa as the USN decomissions them? It would be sort of a stop gap if and when the RN ever gets an LHD.

Click to expand...

This was my 'dream' for the RAN. Unfortunately the RAN has critical manpower shortages. The new LHDs are being designed to have a core crew of only 243 (i.e. approx 500 for the two ships). The crew needed to man a Tarawa (930) would be prohibitive. The RAN plans to order two LHDs around the middle of this year. The Spanish Navantia BPE and the French Mistral are the designs being considered. The BPE is designed to operate up to 20 F-35Bs and a lot of Australians would like to see this selected along with the purchase of F-35Bs (VSTOL version of the JSF) for one of the four RAAF squadrons that it is eventually planned to re-equip with the JSF.

BTW: Australian army Blackhawk helos have taken the opportunity to work from visiting Wasp class LHDs during exercises with the USN.

Cheers

Thanks Tasman for that info!

AUS Blackhawks onboard the USS Boxer (LHD-4)

All photos released to the public by the US Navy.

Shoalwater Bay (June 19, 2005) – The amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) prepares to launch Australian S70A-9 Black Hawk helicopters during flight operations in support of the combined exercise, Talisman Sabre 2005. Talisman Sabre is an exercise jointly sponsored by the U.S. Pacific Command and Australian Defence Force Joint Operations Command, and designed to train the U.S. Seventh Fleet commander's staff and Australian Joint Operations staff as a designated Combined Task Force (CTF) headquarters. The exercise focuses on crisis action planning and execution of contingency response operations. U.S. Pacific Command units and Australian forces will conduct land, sea and air training throughout the training area. More than 11,000 U.S. and 6,000 Australian personnel will participate. U.S. Navy photo

bd popeye said:

AUS Blackhawks onboard the USS Boxer (LHD-4)

All photos released to the public by the US Navy.

Shoalwater Bay (June 19, 2005) – The amphibious assault ship USS Boxer (LHD 4) prepares to launch Australian S70A-9 Black Hawk helicopters during flight operations in support of the combined exercise, Talisman Sabre 2005. Talisman Sabre is an exercise jointly sponsored by the U.S. Pacific Command and Australian Defence Force Joint Operations Command, and designed to train the U.S. Seventh Fleet commander's staff and Australian Joint Operations staff as a designated Combined Task Force (CTF) headquarters. The exercise focuses on crisis action planning and execution of contingency response operations. U.S. Pacific Command units and Australian forces will conduct land, sea and air training throughout the training area. More than 11,000 U.S. and 6,000 Australian personnel will participate. U.S. Navy photo

Click to expand...

Operatiions from Boxer demonstrated just how valuable the new LHDs will be. Whether or not Australia ends up with the F-35B (the RAAF has shown no public interest in it) helo operations will be vastly improved and safer compared with operations from the modified ex USN Newport class LSTs, Kanimbla and Manoora, that they will replace.

Here is a link to the Spanish BPE, one of the two candidates for the RAN:



Cheers

I still find it somewhat disheartening to hear any reference to Australian F-35B ops as being RAAF and not RAN, as obviously the former has no interest in shipboard activities. It is also a little insulting to RAN FAA officers to suggest they don't have the 'right stuff' to be fighter pilots, since they managed ok until the eighties. Ideally the Australian F-35B sqn should be RAN owned and manned, although support and training facilities would be RAAF for reasons of commonality and economy. This way the shipboard sqn would be available to deploy to either ship as required manned by pilots who actually do want to go to sea and are well adapted to the job already, unlike land based Air Force pilots who on the whole don't think getting their feet wet was part of the deal. In Britain some RAF Harrier pilots (a minority) have grumbled about sea duty and I don't blame them. Carrier ops are a job for Navy pilots because it isn't just about flying from a deck, it's a matter of life at sea, and though some AF pilots adapt well it isn't what they signed up for. If the RAN can offer a career with their FAA as Lightning pilots then recruitment won't be such a big issue, as people will go where they see a future. In parallell, the RNs manning problems of the 70s and 80s stem form the public perception that there wasn't much of a future in a declining service, ie why join when you might be made redundant in a few years. This is probably an element of the RAN's current manpower problems, though by no means the only aspect of them.

Tasman said:

Operatiions from Boxer demonstrated just how valuable the new LHDs will be. Whether or not Australia ends up with the F-35B (the RAAF has shown no public interest in it) helo operations will be vastly improved and safer compared with operations from the modified ex USN Newport class LSTs, Kanimbla and Manoora, that they will replace.

Here is a link to the Spanish BPE, one of the two candidates for the RAN:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Cheers

Click to expand...

Tasman, thanks for all of your great info on the RAN and the conditions there.

As to the Spanish BPE, Strategic Projection Vessel, does anyone know or have pics of its actual construction? They've been at it for a good while and I am really anxious to see some pics of its progress.

Also, FYI, you may enjoy this site I have about....

Obi Wan Russell said:

I still find it somewhat disheartening to hear any reference to Australian F-35B ops as being RAAF and not RAN, as obviously the former has no interest in shipboard activities. It is also a little insulting to RAN FAA officers to suggest they don't have the 'right stuff' to be fighter pilots, since they managed ok until the eighties. Ideally the Australian F-35B sqn should be RAN owned and manned, although support and training facilities would be RAAF for reasons of commonality and economy. This way the shipboard sqn would be available to deploy to either ship as required manned by pilots who actually do want to go to sea and are well adapted to the job already, unlike land based Air Force pilots who on the whole don't think getting their feet wet was part of the deal. In Britain some RAF Harrier pilots (a minority) have grumbled about sea duty and I don't blame them. Carrier ops are a job for Navy pilots because it isn't just about flying from a deck, it's a matter of life at sea, and though some AF pilots adapt well it isn't what they signed up for. If the RAN can offer a career with their FAA as Lightning pilots then recruitment won't be such a big issue, as people will go where they see a future. In parallell, the RNs manning problems of the 70s and 80s stem form the public perception that there wasn't much of a future in a declining service, ie why join when you might be made redundant in a few years. This is probably an element of the RAN's current manpower problems, though by no means the only aspect of them.

Click to expand...

I could not agree more. It is disheartening but the reason for it is entirely political.

The RAAF 'whiteanted' the FAA from the moment it was formed in the late 1940's until its demise in 1982 (when the RAAF ensured government it would be able to provide adequate air cover for the fleet) and the RAN knows it has no chance of getting its fixed wing aviation back at the present time. That is why it is ensuring that there is no reference to the LHDs as aircraft carriers. Pushing the amphibious role has won strong army support. The navy knows its only hope of getting VSTOL aircraft aboard the LHDs at present is if they are RAAF manned and it will need army support to get F-35Bs included in the Australian JSF order. The navy has only just succeeded in winning media and public support for large amphibious ships and it would be reluctant to lose that by turning it into an aircraft carrier debate. Suggesting the formation of a naval JSF squadron at this stage might well result in the RAAF trying to get the LHD program cancelled with smaller ships substituted and the present Chief of the Australian Defence Force is the former RAAF Chief!

My hope is that once the big amphibious ships are in service and the RAAF once again demonstrates its unwillingness to deploy aircraft for fleet and army support the navy may win sufficient support from the army to re-establish a small fixed wing component. The army finally won control of battlefield helicopters after the airforce consistently failed to provide the support desired. Hopefully the navy will be able to do the same.

Before my ex RAAF mates stop talking to me I should say that I understand their concerns. The total size of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is only one third that of the United States Marine Corps and the potential loss of 25% of its air combat strength to the navy would be an obvious worry. On the positive side the concept of joint operations has been taken to higher levels in recent times and it may well be that an RAAF or a joint RAAF/RAN squadron might prove workable.

The 'Tasman dream' is that F-35Bs will be ordered by the RAAF as a first stage. Stage two would be the formation of a joint RAAF/RAN squadron. Stage three would be the rebirth of the fixed wing FAA!

Cheers

BTW, I think your comments re the positive impact on recruiting that an RAN carrier and F-35B force would have is spot on.

Jeff Head said:

Also, FYI, you may enjoy this site I have about...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the link Jeff. I must say I appreciate the info I've gleaned from your posts in this and other threads (along with your insight into carrier operations in your novel. Lets hope USN carrier groups never have to confront a secret weapon like the LRASD! )

Cheers

Tasman, I like your plan. Get the RAAF to pay for the F-35Bs, then persuade them they don't want to fly them after all, reform VF-805 sqn by the back door. Brilliant! Now are you sure we can't interest you in Invincible? Low mileage, one careful owner, all mod cons, and a very reasonable price...

Now are you sure we can't interest you in Invincible? Low mileage, one careful owner, all mod cons, and a very reasonable price...

Click to expand...

That's funny!:rofl:

How about this for the retired USN CV's

For sale 5 aircraft carriers! High mileage! Need lots of work. Great potential! You tow, you save! Aircraft not included....

save on gas if it is nuclear:roll: somewhat environmental friendly.

popeye if i remember correctly, you said that nimitz would be the optimal size for a aircraft carrier, what about for helicopter and vertical takeoff fixed wing like harrier and f-35