The effect of RAN 1964 Carrier Replacement Plan going Ahead?

I've been thinking if Australia goes down the CVA-01 route instead of the Essex. Would the air wing be the same 18x Helos, 16x F4s, 12x S2s/S3s and 4x E1s/E2s or would it won't a more multi purpose air wing say something like 16x F4s, 12x Buccaneers/A6s/A7s, 10x Helos, 8x S3s and 4x E2s?
 
Caryina2642 said:
I've been thinking if Australia goes down the CVA-01 route instead of the Essex. Would the air wing be the same 18x Helos, 16x F4s, 12x S2s/S3s and 4x E1s/E2s or would it won't a more multi purpose air wing say something like 16x F4s, 12x Buccaneers/A6s/A7s, 10x Helos, 8x S3s and 4x E2s?
Click to expand...

IIUC the air wing would be more or less the same in either scenario. In either case it would make the RAN-FAA more powerful than the RAAF.
 
Rule of cool said:
IIUC the air wing would be more or less the same in either scenario. In either case it would make the RAN-FAA more powerful than the RAAF.
Click to expand...
In what way the RAAF would still.be bigger and have more fighters. The F4s would are alot better than the Mirage IIIO. The P3s are better than the S3s or S2s. The only advantage the RAN FAA would have in the 70s wpuld be the E1s/E2s
 
Caryina2642 said:
In what way the RAAF would still.be bigger and have more fighters. The F4s would are alot better than the Mirage IIIO. The P3s are better than the S3s or S2s. The only advantage the RAN FAA would have in the 70s wpuld be the E1s/E2s
Click to expand...

Australia was spending 6.2% of GDP in 1962 (the £200m cap years) which went to 5.2% in 1965 and back up to 5.9% in 1967 and you want Australia to spend even more money to get a capability that the CA, CAF and C-COSC don't believe Australia needs and the RAN couldn't crew anyway?

I don't mean to be a killjoy, but anyone can propose anything. Proposing realistic things that can enter service and serve the National Interest is another thing entirely.
 
Rule of cool said:
Australia was spending 6.2% of GDP in 1962 (the £200m cap years) which went to 5.2% in 1965 and back up to 5.9% in 1967 and you want Australia to spend even more money to get a capability that the CA, CAF and C-COSC don't believe Australia needs and the RAN couldn't crew anyway?

I don't mean to be a killjoy, but anyone can propose anything. Proposing realistic things that can enter service and serve the National Interest is another thing entirely.
Click to expand...
I agree it's extremely unlikely that it would happen in real life. There's probably a 0.000001% chance it would happen. I am just looking at the effect of if it did happen
 
Caryina2642 said:
I agree it's extremely unlikely that it would happen in real life. There's probably a 0.000001% chance it would happen. I am just looking at the effect of if it did happen
Click to expand...

I have a vague idea that a better British defence policy and procurement could lead to a better Australian defence policy and procurement, mainly because it's easy to identify the inflections points and they're so close together.
 
Rule of cool said:
I have a vague idea that a better British defence policy and procurement could lead to a better Australian defence policy and procurement, mainly because it's easy to identify the inflections points and they're so close together.
Click to expand...
Ok i would really like to hear this idea
 
Caryina2642 said:
Ok i would really like to hear this idea
Click to expand...

For a very short while after the Malaysia-Singapore split in 1965 there was some talk of Britain relocating its forces there to Australia and making Australia the main base for its EoS operations. I believe the early 1966 DWP which put a 1975 end date to EoS and the fact that British troops would be idle in Australia while Australian troops were fighting in Vietnam ended that idea.

All this was of course during the era where British defence policy decisions basically made Britain a poor ally and partner for equipment procurement. However, if Britain made better/good procurement choices in the 1957-66 period she might have been a better ally to buy defence equipment from. Further if Britain hadn't backed itself into a corner with Defence policy and procurement it may not have done such a precipitous withdrawal from EoS and indeed stationed some force in Australia from the 60s, even if only for a decade. At the very least the British would have expanded Defence facilities in Australia for their own use, such as Fleet Base West and the air bases in WA and NT.
 
Caryina2642 said:
I've been thinking if Australia goes down the CVA-01 route instead of the Essex. Would the air wing be the same 18x Helos, 16x F4s, 12x S2s/S3s and 4x E1s/E2s or would it won't a more multi purpose air wing say something like 16x F4s, 12x Buccaneers/A6s/A7s, 10x Helos, 8x S3s and 4x E2s?
Click to expand...
If I may, I'd be inclined to go:
-18 x Helicopters;
-16 x F-4's
-12 x S-2 (Turbo Tracker's)
-4 x E-1 (Turbo Tracer's)

The Buccaneer or A-6 would add yet another type of aircraft into the ADF ORBAT, and in such small numbers would only add to the RAN's logistical, training and operational pains.
At the end of the day, the RAN FAA isn't the USN/RN. I think the multi-role/bombload capabilities of the F-4 would be more than suffice, especially if the RAN was smart and kept updated with PGM's/stand-off weapons.
If you had to have a dedicated strike/attack aircraft, my money would be on the LTV A-7E (TF-41/Spey-powered) - cost effective, bomb truck and low deck spotting. The A-7 could also act as a tanker for the F-4's, S-2, E-1's and of course, A-7E's.

Can I ask why eighteen helicopters? It's seems a little excessive, what with 12 x S-2's on board. I would have thought 9-12 at Max would be suffice? This would almost allow you close to 24 x F-4's (or 12 x F-4's and 12 x A-7E's).

(Profiles by Jonesthetank from Beyond the Sprues at my request)

Regards
Pioneer
 

Attachments

  • WhatIf RAN Grumman SF2-4 (S-2H) Tracker(Mark Jones.png
    WhatIf RAN Grumman SF2-4 (S-2H) Tracker(Mark Jones.png
    134.1 KB · Views: 14
  • WhatIf RAN E-1T Tracer (Mark Jones).png
    WhatIf RAN E-1T Tracer (Mark Jones).png
    157.5 KB · Views: 16
Pioneer said:
Can I ask why eighteen helicopters? It's seems a little excessive, what with 12 x S-2's on board. I would have thought 9-12 at Max would be suffice? This would almost allow you close to 24 x F-4's (or 12 x F-4's and 12 x A-7E's).
Click to expand...
The NAA document states 16x Wessex and 2x SAR Helicopters for the Essex class air wing
 
Rule of cool said:
For a very short while after the Malaysia-Singapore split in 1965 there was some talk of Britain relocating its forces there to Australia and making Australia the main base for its EoS operations. I believe the early 1966 DWP which put a 1975 end date to EoS and the fact that British troops would be idle in Australia while Australian troops were fighting in Vietnam ended that idea.

All this was of course during the era where British defence policy decisions basically made Britain a poor ally and partner for equipment procurement. However, if Britain made better/good procurement choices in the 1957-66 period she might have been a better ally to buy defence equipment from. Further if Britain hadn't backed itself into a corner with Defence policy and procurement it may not have done such a precipitous withdrawal from EoS and indeed stationed some force in Australia from the 60s, even if only for a decade. At the very least the British would have expanded Defence facilities in Australia for their own use, such as Fleet Base West and the air bases in WA and NT.
Click to expand...
This would be a good way to get more infrastructure down earlier. I wonder if stationed in Australia, Britain would have kept a small force say a frigate, submarine, 1 or 2 RAF sqn and maybe a battalion in Australia post 75
 
Caryina2642 said:
Oh it definitely does i think with 12 S2s you probably need no more than 10 maybe 12 for 2 SAR helicopters
Click to expand...
Not a Navy man, but by chance, did Wessex operate in Hunter and Killer fashion? hence the 18 x helos?

Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Pioneer said:
Not a Navy man, but by chance, did Wessex operate in Hunter and Killer fashion?

Pioneer
Click to expand...
I believe it could operate by it self but they might have wanted to operate in the Hunter killer fashion
Rule of cool said:
By the time of these Essex investigations the RAN had received 27 Wessex, so might as well use them.
Click to expand...
That is true but it is over half of the total Wessex the RAN being deployed on the Essex
 
Rule of cool said:
I don't mean to be a killjoy, but anyone can propose anything. Proposing realistic things that can enter service and serve the National Interest is another thing entirely.
Click to expand...
Alternatehistory.com has an ASB forum for things like this. Does Secret Projects?
 
Pioneer said:
Not a Navy man, but by chance, did Wessex operate in Hunter and Killer fashion? hence the 18 x helos?

Pioneer
Click to expand...
No it didn't and AFIAK neither did the Seabat that is was developed from. The USN had a squadron of 16 Seabats on every Essex class CVS plus a few other helicopters for SAR & Vertrep which they replaced with Sea Kings on a one-for-one basis, i.e. a squadron of 16 Sea Kings plus a few other helicopters for SAR & Vertrep.
 
Pioneer said:
Can I ask why eighteen helicopters? It's seems a little excessive, what with 12 x S-2's on board. I would have thought 9-12 at Max would be suffice? This would almost allow you close to 24 x F-4's (or 12 x F-4's and 12 x A-7E's).
Click to expand...
FWIW the air group of a CVS Essex was 4 A-4s, 20 S-2s, 4 E-1s, one C-1, 16 SH-3s and a pair of SAR/Vertrep helicopters for a total of 47 aircraft.

IIRC (1) the size of air group for SCB.100 CVS was similar, except it had F-4s to drive off shadowers instead of A-4s, S-3s instead of the S-2s, E-2s instead of the E-1s and C-2s instead of the C-1s.

Enough S-3s were purchased to maintain a front-line of 120 in 12 squadrons of 10 aircraft. IIRC (2) that was because the original plan was to retain 6 Essex CVS into the 1970s (before they were replaced one-for-one by the SCB.100) and their 20 Trackers in 2 squadrons of 10 would be replaced one-for-one by 20 Vikings in 2 squadrons of 10.

It looks like the RAN wanted to do what the USN did as their Essex had a similar size air group to the CVS Essex class in USN service. The difference is that they had more fighters and less fixed-wing ASW aircraft. Maybe the RAN preferred to have an air group that was exactly the same, but the risk of air attack was stronger, so they had to trade Trackers for Phantoms.
 
Rule of cool said:
For a very short while after the Malaysia-Singapore split in 1965 there was some talk of Britain relocating its forces there to Australia and making Australia the main base for its EoS operations. I believe the early 1966 DWP which put a 1975 end date to EoS and the fact that British troops would be idle in Australia while Australian troops were fighting in Vietnam ended that idea.
Click to expand...
As Ken Bruce would say "one year out", because the 1966 DWP was to cut the strike carriers by 1975 while the (supposedly cheaper) island bases were set up. At that time HMG was saying in public that they intended to maintain a military presence East of Suez until at least 1985.

The decision of to withdraw from East of Suez by 1975 was announced in 1967 and in 1968 a further deterioration in the British economy forced them to bring the withdrawal forward to the end of 1971.
 
Rule of cool said:
Australia was spending 6.2% of GDP in 1962 (the £200m cap years) which went to 5.2% in 1965 and back up to 5.9% in 1967 and you want Australia to spend even more money to get a capability that the CA, CAF and C-COSC don't believe Australia needs and the RAN couldn't crew anyway?
Click to expand...
That's even more than I though. I only have the statistics for 1966 to the early 1990s. IIRC my source said about 5.0% from 1966 to the early 1970s, then it fell to 3.0% by the middle 1970s (due to the end of the Vietnam War & Gough Whitlam's defence cuts) and remained at about 3% of GNP from then to the early 1990s.

Although I said.
NOMISYRRUC said:
Fair enough. I think the RAN couldn't get one ether. That is short of spending the thick end of an extra one percent of GNP on defence or not buying F-111 and using the money saved to buy a CVA.01 and its aircraft.
Click to expand...
Is Australia reducing defence spending from a peak of 5.9% in 1967 to about 4.0% from the middle 1970s onwards instead of 3.0% from then on realistic? Would Australia's equivalent of the "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" be prepared to pay the higher taxes and/or reduced spending on social services required?
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Maybe the RAN preferred to have an air group that was exactly the same, but the risk of air attack was stronger, so they had to trade Trackers for Phantoms.
Click to expand...
I would say so cause the RAN was turning towards the USN at the time. In the NAA the RAN was pretty worried about Indonesia Tu16s carrying AShM which is why the wanted they F4 with its BVR missiles
 
Just wondering im today's money how does the cost of the Essex and CVA-01 compare to the nuclear subs we are buying?
 
Caryina2642 said:
Just wondering I'm today's money how does the cost of the Essex and CVA-01 compare to the nuclear subs we are buying?
Click to expand...
The NAA document says the estimated cost of CVA.01 in 1964 was £A72.5 million.
  • Or £58.0 million Sterling at the exchange rate of the day.
  • According to the Bank of England Inflation calculator £58 million in 1964 was worth £1,036.13 million in August 2025.
  • Which at the current exchange rate is GPB 1.0 = AUD 2.07 is A$2,144.79 million
Which is ridiculously cheap to me.
 
Last edited:
NOMISYRRUC said:
The NAA document says the estimated cost of CVA.01 in 1964 was £A72.5 million.
  • Or £58.0 million Sterling at the exchange rate of the day.
  • According to the Bank of England Inflation calculator £58 million in 1964 was worth £1,036.13 million in August 2025.
  • Which at the current exchange rate is GPB 1.0 = AUD 2.07 is A$2,144.79 million
Which seems is ridiculously cheap to me.
Click to expand...
Yeah it does especially compared to the$286 to $386 Billion that the AUKUS Submarines are going to cost
 
58 mio Aus£ ~ 130 mio US$ 1964 ~ 1.36 billion US$ 2025 using CPI.
Of course that is for a ww2 carrier with 1960s tech at best.
 
Rule of cool said:
Dunno, but CVA01s contemporary SSNs Valiant and Warspite cost 25m and 21m pounds.
Click to expand...
Valiant was completed in 1966 at a cost of £25.3 million which according to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator was worth £415.13 in August 2025, which is A$859.31 million at today's GBP to AUD exchange rate.

Warspite was completed in 1967 at a cost of £21.5 million, which according to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator was worth £344.86 million in August 2025, which is A$713.85 million at today's GBP to AUD exchange rate.
 
orlovsky said:
58 mio Aus£ ~ 130 mio US$ 1964 ~ 1.36 billion US$ 2025 using CPI.
Of course that is for a ww2 carrier with 1960s tech at best.
Click to expand...
It was 72.5 in Australian Pounds. The £58.0 million was in Pounds Sterling. Also as it's a ship that's built in the UK rather than the USA, therefore British inflation is the more suitable than American inflation.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
Valiant was completed in 1966 at a cost of £25.3 million which according to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator was worth £415.13 in August 2025, which is A$859.31 million at today's GBP to AUD exchange rate.

Warspite was completed in 1967 at a cost of £21.5 million, which according to the Bank of England Inflation Calculator was worth £344.86 million in August 2025, which is A$713.85 million at today's GBP to AUD exchange rate.
Click to expand...
Okay why is CVA-01 and Nuclear Subs cheaper even with inflation than todays AUKUS Subs?
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
It was 72.5 in Australian Pounds. The £58.0 million was in Pounds Sterling. Also as it's a ship that's built in the UK rather than the USA, therefore British inflation is the more suitable than American inflation.
Click to expand...
I was doing the nrs for the essex.
 
Caryina2642 said:
Okay why is CVA-01 and Nuclear Subs cheaper even with inflation than todays AUKUS Subs?
Click to expand...
I don't know, but it's probably 2020s technology v 1960s technology.

The price of new military kit usually rises at a faster rate than the rate of inflation AND at a faster rate than the economy grows. That's due to each generation of military kit incorporating more advanced technology, which is usually a lot more expensive. IIRC one Batch 1 Type 22 cost at least twice as much as a Batch 3 Leander after allowing for inflation.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
I don't know, but it's probably 2020s technology v 1960s technology.

The price of new military kit usually rises at a faster rate than the rate of inflation AND at a faster rate than the economy grows. That's due to each generation of military kit incorporating more advanced technology, which is usually a lot more expensive. IIRC one Batch 1 Type 22 cost at least twice as much as a Batch 3 Leander after allowing for inflation.
Click to expand...
Fair enough what is the coast difference between CVA-01 and Queen Elizabeth?
 
Caryina2642 said:
Fair enough what is the coast difference between CVA-01 and Queen Elizabeth?
Click to expand...
NOMISYRRUC said:
I haven't the foggiest.
Click to expand...
But IIRC Dr Clarke says that some of cost of the the Queen Elizabeth class was due to the Government slowing down their construction to save money in the short term, but made them cost more in the long term with the result that they could have built 3 for the OTL cost of 2.

I think he said similar things about the Type 45 destroyer with the result that they could have built 12 (as originally planned) for the OTL cost of 6.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
But IIRC Dr Clarke says that some of cost of the the Queen Elizabeth class was due to the Government slowing down their construction to save money in the short term, but made them cost more in the long term with the result that they could have built 3 for the OTL cost of 2.

I think he said similar things about the Type 45 destroyer with the result that they could have built 12 (as originally planned) for the OTL cost of 6.
Click to expand...
So in other words the UK goverment shot themselves in the foot and the RN could have be better equipped today.
Fair enough. its just hard to wrap my head around how even with inflation the CVA-01 seems so cheap inn todays money. I guess electronics are the real cost killer when it comes to military equipment compared to steel.
It just makes me think if Australia had a slightly bigger economy it might have happed but it is still most likely not happening
 
Caryina2642 said:
So in other words the UK Government shot themselves in the foot and the RN could have be better equipped today.
Click to expand...
It depends upon whether it was a forced or unforced error. Plus, there isn't a long term, if one doesn't survive the short term.
Caryina2642 said:
Fair enough. its just hard to wrap my head around how even with inflation the CVA-01 seems so cheap inn todays money. I guess electronics are the real cost killer when it comes to military equipment compared to steel.
It just makes me think if Australia had a slightly bigger economy it might have happed but it is still most likely not happening.
Click to expand...
That and the 1964 Estimate of CVA.01's cost may have been too low.
 
NOMISYRRUC said:
It depends upon whether it was a forced or unforced error. Plus, there isn't a long term, if one doesn't survive the short term.

That and the 1964 Estimate of CVA.01's cost may have been too low.
Click to expand...
That is true, wouldn't surprise if it was low to help get it through
 
Caryina2642 said:
Fair enough what is the coast difference between CVA-01 and Queen Elizabeth?
Click to expand...
NOMISYRRUC said:
I haven't the foggiest.
Click to expand...
According to the AI Overview which appeared after I put "Cost of the Queen Elizabeth class" into my web browser.

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​

The program to build both Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, including HMS Queen Elizabeth, cost over £6 billion, with the initial budget around £3.9 billion. The unit cost for each carrier is approximately £3 billion.
  • Total program cost: Approximately £6 billion for both carriers, including the HMS Queen Elizabeth and its sister ship, HMS Prince of Wales.
  • Initial budget: The project was initially budgeted at £3.9 billion.
  • Unit cost: The approximate cost per ship is £3 billion.
***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****​
NOMISYRRUC said:
The NAA document says the estimated cost of CVA.01 in 1964 was £A72.5 million.
  • Or £58.0 million Sterling at the exchange rate of the day.
  • According to the Bank of England Inflation calculator £58 million in 1964 was worth £1,036.13 million in August 2025.
  • Which at the current exchange rate is GPB 1.0 = AUD 2.07 is A$2,144.79 million
Which is ridiculously cheap to me.
Click to expand...
So one Queen Elizabeth costs three times more than a CVA.01.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom