Register here

Author Topic: Australian Invincible  (Read 13180 times)

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2016, 11:57:31 am »
The offered Essex class carrier for the Royal Australian Navy was the USS Oriskany. Sadly I do not had that article about the RAN carriers as the warship projects forum was long dead.

The carrier wasn't the Oriskany as this was an active USN unit. But the upgrade was to be to the "Oriskany" standard and even further. The RAN was looking at a mid 1960s combat system with SPS-48 3D radar and longer steam catapults. All the archive info is here on secretprojects somewhere. Search for Australian Relacement Carrier.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2016, 12:05:45 pm »
The first was an RAN FAA WO who told me the government had intended to progressively increase carrier numbers to three, from the late 60s,to support the two ocean navy policy, then I read the same thing in a magazine article from when Malcom Frazer was Defence Minister where he stated the need to increase carrier and destroyer numbers, to three and twenty three respectively, again for the two ocean navy.  Finally I heard of Australian interest on acquiring Hermes, Eagle and possibly Victorious as they became surplus to UK requirements, for little more than scrap value.  There was even supposedly interest in the Seavixen.

A different kettle of fish then. One would think any serious plan to expand the carrier force would have to be based on new builds rather than end of life Ran hand me downs.. Which might explain better the Vickers/Codock Protean modular carrier proposal. 6-10 hulls all up with CVS, AOR and APK versions to sustain such a two ocean plan (plus 12-15 DDL EV2*s ).
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline JohnR

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 353
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #32 on: July 08, 2016, 04:49:04 pm »
What is the Vickers/Codock Protean and the DDL EV2*s?  I assume the latter is a development of the well known DDL?

Regards

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #33 on: July 08, 2016, 06:19:34 pm »
Its actually the Y-ARD (Aust) Protean and its a design for a modular carrier, suppprt ship. And DDL EV2* is the name of the DDL design that the RAN wanted to build. The RAN's plans for local design and build fleet recapitalization in the 1970s that were all cancelled by the Whitlam Govt. so they could spend the money on employing more bureaucrats. Both designs are detailed hers just use the search function.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline pf matthews

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2016, 04:51:18 am »
Here is the link to previous discussion regarding the Protean 'modular' ship concept.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16236.msg155729.html#msg155729
Seek and you shall find.....
Pete

Offline Volkodav

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2016, 06:46:54 am »
Thankyou for that I was going to ask if anyone had more information on the proposal.

Offline JohnR

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 353
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #36 on: July 14, 2016, 06:15:53 pm »
Thanks for the info, I did do a google search which brought up nothing.

Regards.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #37 on: July 14, 2016, 08:12:53 pm »
I'm posting from a smart phone so it can be hard to do the cut and paste thing for links. But in general use the search function of this forum (3rd button from the left above). It works better than Google for finding obscure defence tech.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #38 on: January 11, 2018, 08:03:51 am »
What an interesting thread. Is there any detail or picture of that RAN Iwo Jima proposal that made it to the final ?
Inchon had entered service in 1970, how hard would it be to build new Iow Jima a decade later ?
Was the Iwo Jima class ever considered by someone else ? Did the USN tried to sold some of them in the 90's, at the end of their careers ?
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2499
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #39 on: January 11, 2018, 11:05:35 am »
Given that the proposed new Iwo Jima was really a new design (new powerplant, new electronics, etc,) that only had a hull shape in common with the originals, it would have been the same as any new ship design.

I don't think there was any serious interest in the Iwo Jima from other navies.  It really wasn't a wonderful design, just good enough at the time.  By the time they were being retired, they were in very poor material condition.  I heard stories that a wrench dropped in the wrong compartment could end up on the sea floor, for example.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #40 on: January 11, 2018, 11:20:35 am »
Thank you.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline Volkodav

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #41 on: April 03, 2018, 07:21:43 am »
The entire RAN carrier replacement is very interesting with a large number of designs and concepts considered over the years.  i.e. the LHA (Tarawa) was considered, as was a Modified LHA with a bout twice the aircraft capacity that I would love to get further info on, I wonder if it was similar in concept to the current LHA (America) with the well dock deleted in favour of additional aviation capacity and stores.

Other options included the Vosper Thornycroft Harrier Carrier, a conventionally powered derivative of the French PH75 as well as the Italian Garibaldi design, which was short listed with the SCS and Modified Iwojima.

To me the biggest shame is the RANs ability to keep Melbourne effective for so long as this meant the hard and potentially expensive decsions could be defered, resulting in the loss of most of the RANs ASW and independant operational capability from the early 80s onwards, with its rebuilding only just now really getting underway.  It doesn't matter whether Melbourne was replaced with a CTOL carrier or whether she was convered to an ASW helicopter carrier, or even if the RAN built three Escort Cruisers instead of buying the DDGs, the end result would have been the same, the capability would have lasted, without the need of a single large ticket expendature, until at least the late 90s, which is when the government realised that the ADF had been dangerously hollowed out.  Had there been a small number (or even a single) medium sized, or several small flat decks in service, recovery would have been much easier, quicker and cheaper as the aviation shills and ASW skills would not have been lost and assuming the money saved had come out of the surafce fleet, it would not have been wasted on the FFGUP, the LPAs, SH-60B, Super Sea Sprite etc.

Looking at it the modified invincible in the first post of this topic could have filled the requirements of the RAN very well and quite affordably.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1780
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #42 on: April 03, 2018, 08:30:34 am »
Conventional powered PH-75, hmmm ? This would have helped the Charles de Gaulle, as nuclear power come right from the PH-75 from a decade earlier (1975 > 1986). In turn, PH-75 was at the very beginning not nuclear, borrowing from the F67 frigates. It become a nuclear powered ship because it was more than a helocarrier: it was to be a kind of multirole ship with many different missions and it was to operate alone and not in a big task force, and finally France massive civilian nuclear power buildup extended to that ship. Think not Clemenceau or CdG, but Jeanne d'Arc (or Arromanches late years.) Disaster relief, hospital ship, C4I command post, and many other missions.

It was a pretty dubious idea as even the Soviets, who build the Kirov battlecruisers with nuclear power, build their helocarriers with conventional steam turbines - Moskva and Kiev and even Kuznetsov.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2018, 08:33:05 am by Archibald »
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php

Offline Volkodav

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #43 on: April 04, 2018, 04:07:19 am »
I believe the conventional power plant was to be RR Olympus, so not much use for CdG.

Offline FighterJock

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 731
Re: Australian Invincible
« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2018, 08:08:16 am »
I believe the conventional power plant was to be RR Olympus, so not much use for CdG.

I take it that is the same Olympus engine that powered the Concorde and the Vulcan?  Strange that they were designing one to be put on an aircraft carrier.  :o