Australian Invincible

[GTX]

Not if they were diverted first...

 

[starviking]

I also wonder if the Shah of Iran before the 1979 revolution would buy the original Invincible design (if I remember he too wanted 3-4 such ships) or this modified proposal?

There are certainly such claims, but it's not clear how serious the Shah's enthusiasm was, and what exactly he wanted. In a lot of respects, he seems to have treated defence exhibitions the same way a child treats a sweet shop.

I also never understood the Shah's reasoning for wanting such a vessel. Why would he need one, and how would he use it? And why so many?

Maybe to take the Iraqis per surprise over the Al-fao peninsula ? attacking them from the sea ?

That doesn't seem like it would require large helicopter carriers.

Most of the Shah era procurements can be seen more through the lens of Iran as a US ally in a global conflict with the Soviets than the Iran-Iraq conflict (though that was an issue). I haven't seen a specific mission for the carriers, but my guess would be that they anticipated providing ASW hunting groups in the Gulf of Oman or North Arabian Sea to protect oil tanker routes from Iran to the West and Far East.

IIRC the Shah wanted Iran to be a regional power, and the carriers would enable Iran to be a player in the Indian Ocean.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Yes, along with the fact that he wanted to revitalise the morbid SEATO alliance. For some more context, as the 1970s drew on 'Detente' was showing itself to be one of the great lies of history, the Soviet Union and it's allies were increasingly on the rampage, Great Britain was still firmly in the hands of the 'managed declinists', and the United States seemed doomed to terminal decline (not helped by throwing various allies under the bus starting with Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Tibetan government in exile), even more so after Carter became president.

In a bitter irony, SEATO's fate was sealed by the fall of the Shah, but Carter's betrayal did at least ensure his own demise, and hence a new dawn for the USA. Carter and the Democratic party were actually quite lucky that the full details of his treachery & incompetence didn't become public knowledge until the 21st Century (only a few years ago in fact). Otherwise the Democrats would have very likely spent the remainder of the 1980s (at the very least!) in the political wilderness.

 

[Tzoli]

So the Shah was asking help from USA but the then actual government declined to provide any aid?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Worse than that. He actively assisted Khomeini in his takeover. See here for some of the details: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160

The revelations helped explain a great deal about why the State Department and the CIA had been caught so badly off guard by the Revolution and the subsequent Hostage Crisis.

It appears that Carter was under the rather severe delusion that the Mullahs would, alongside the Communists and the rest of the secular opposition, create a moderate Islamic based democracy which in turn would become a neutral buffer state between the United States and the Soviet Union, helping to prop up the even then rapidly crumbling policy of Detente. Needless to say, Carter and his close advisers had never bothered to learn anything about Khomeini's Velayat-e faqih doctrine, even though he had written a detailed book on it. Of course, once the Shah was overthrown and their grip on power was secure, the Clerics immediately turned on their erstwhile allies in the Provisional Government/opposition movement.

In another irony, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 which pretty much ended any pretense about Detente being real was, among other things, intended to help clear the decks for a potential invasion of Iran to support Soviet proxies there.

 

[Volkodav]

It is interesting also to speculate what might have happened if the Shah's ships had been built and then not taken up or more likely, had been diverted from post revolutionary Iran.

I can see where you are going with this, three brand new ships in the water or under construction around the time of Australia's carrier competition and the Falklands, possibly outfitted with a mix of UK and US systems and to a higher standard than the RNs ships. I must confess I was thinking the same thing.

Potentially the UK could have kept some (instead of building Ocean) and sold the rest, or kept all and flogged off the Invincibles. Imagine one to Australia, one or two to India.

 

[BlackBat242]

Yes, along with the fact that he wanted to revitalise the morbid SEATO alliance. For some more context, as the 1970s drew on 'Detente' was showing itself to be one of the great lies of history, the Soviet Union and it's allies were increasingly on the rampage, Great Britain was still firmly in the hands of the 'managed declinists', and the United States seemed doomed to terminal decline (not helped by throwing various allies under the bus starting with Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Tibetan government in exile), even more so after Carter became president.

In a bitter irony, SEATO's fate was sealed by the fall of the Shah, but Carter's betrayal did at least ensure his own demise, and hence a new dawn for the USA. Carter and the Democratic party were actually quite lucky that the full details of his treachery & incompetence didn't become public knowledge until the 21st Century (only a few years ago in fact). Otherwise the Democrats would have very likely spent the remainder of the 1980s (at the very least!) in the political wilderness.

METO, not SEATO.

The Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), also known as the Baghdad Pact and subsequently known as the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), was a military alliance formed on 24 February 1955 by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, and the UK (with US pressure and promises of military and economic aid) and dissolved on 16 March 1979.

The SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an international organization for collective defense in Southeast Asia created by the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, or Manila Pact, signed on 8 September 1954 in Manila, the Philippines. It was dissolved 30 June 1977.

Despite its name, SEATO mostly included countries located outside of the region but with an interest either in the region or the organization itself. They were Australia (which administered Papua New Guinea), France (which had recently relinquished French Indochina), New Zealand, Pakistan (which until 1971 included East Pakistan, now Bangladesh), the Philippines, Thailand, the UK (which administered Hong Kong, North Borneo and Sarawak) and the USA.

 

[BlackBat242]

Hmm. Yeah, I have to concede that point with regard to early model RAF Land Harriers. The later models are a very different matter, of course, but if Australia had bought "Land Harriers" in 1982-83, which model would it have been getting? Early RAF Harrier or AV-8B family?

The plan c. 1981 also called for a VSTOL aircraft to be selected in 1983, after the carrier selection in 1982. The only choice, I think, would have been between Sea Harrier (with radar) and Harrier II (with more payload).

The AV-8B wasn’t a “Land Harrier” it was a “Marine Harrier”. So fully speced for flat top operation. Just by sea soldiers rather than sailors. The advantage of the AV-8B is better range/payload and the cost to buy and sustain advantages of being tied into the US system. The Spaniards had gone into Harriers via the USMC’s AV-8A so stuck with what they knew.


An update on this. In 1980-82 the RAN was actually looking closely at the AV-8B but at what was then called the Navalised AV-8B which was the version with the radar nose that later was, sort of, built as the AV-8B Plus from 1993. The reason being the RAN was unconvinced the Sea Harrier FRS.1 could fly effectively over the hot and dirty seas of South East Asia. The RAN was trying to arrange a lease of RN SHARs to go on-board HMAS Australia (ex Invincible) up until the Falklands War ended the chance of that happening.

The radar-equipped AV-8B, which was historically not produced until the 1990s, was originally proposed by McDonnell-Douglas during the development of the AV-8B... this clip is from a book I bought in August 1981 at the BX on MCRD San Diego, a couple of hours after I graduated USMC basic training (I still have that same copy of the book).




Here is what the USMC eventually did in the 1990s to about half of its AV-8B fleet (they told Congress "Its not a new version, just an updating of the existing one" in order to get funding). The changes were so significant that it should have received the "AV-8D" designation... but then Congress would have realized what the Marines were doing... !






Here is the data on the radar:
AV-8B+ APG-65 antenna diameter = 22.8" vs 26.625" in the F/A-18A/B
Source: The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998

 

[GTX]

Carter heightened tensions with the Soviets over the inconsequential Afghan invasion

Hmmm...I would argue that it was the Soviets that heightened tensions by invading or are you criticising Carter for having the audacity to react? If so, how do you classify Ronald Reagan's subsequent supporting of the Mujahideen with arms etc and the support of the Pakistan forces...much of which provided the roots for the Taliban etc?

Either way, this is getting way off topic for a thread about a theoreticalAustralian Invincible Class ship to replace HMAS Melbourne.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Documents from the National Archives of Australia on the replacement for HMAS MELBOURNE:

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

It seems that by early 1982 the idea of buying INVINCIBLE was going out of favour in Australia in favour of P-3Cs and basing more capable helicopters on the FFGs. If a newbuild aircraft carrier had gone ahead, the shortlist had been narrowed to building one in the US, either to the SCS or a modified LPH design.

 

[TomS]

Documents from the National Archives of Australia on the replacement for HMAS MELBOURNE:

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

It seems that by early 1982 the idea of buying INVINCIBLE was going out of favour in Australia in favour of P-3Cs and basing more capable helicopters on the FFGs. If a newbuild aircraft carrier had gone ahead, the shortlist had been narrowed to building one in the US, either to the SCS or a modified LPH design.

Ironically, they might have been better off having Spain build them a second PdA, as the first (adapted from SCS) was starting at about the same time.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Ironically, they might have been better off having Spain build them a second PdA, as the first (adapted from SCS) was starting at about the same time.

That's noted as being ruled out due to cost - building an SCS in the US was considered to be cheaper.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's noted as being ruled out due to cost - building an SCS in the US was considered to be cheaper.

Strange, it's usually cheaper to build multiples of the same thing.

 

[TomS]

That's noted as being ruled out due to cost - building an SCS in the US was considered to be cheaper.

Spain was really just learning, so I guess that makes sense.

 

[GTX]

Strange, it's usually cheaper to build multiples of the same thing.

I don't think it quite works when talking about things such as ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think it quite works when talking about things such as ships.

Virginia class.

 

[TomS]

I don't think it quite works when talking about things such as ships.

It can, especially if you can order multiples of specialized gear at one time so the supplier only has to set up for it once.

OTOH, Spain was still pretty new at the large warship building business at the time, and might not have had the facilities (like building ways) or people (welders, etc) to tackle two light carriers near simultaneously.

 

[Volkodav]

The Sea Dart seems to get a lot of intention when Invincible being sold to Australia is retrospectively looked at but it wasn't a big issue for the RAN. When they were looking at a carrier in the 1970s to build in Australia to replace the Melbourne an area air defence missile system was not a requirement. So when Vickers pitched a design based on the Invincible they didn't include one. Neither did G&C with their sea control ship nor Ingalls with their light carrier. The later was called a modified Iwo Jima but it only shared the hull with this ship.


When the offer came through to sell the actual HMS Invincible it was going to come with the Sea Darts. Removing the system was not part of the plan to Australianise the ship. Sea Dart was in a different class to the SM-1MR operated by the RAN on the DDG and FFG at the time. It was comparable to the SM-1ER and the two systems would have worked very well together providing a RAN task force layered air defence. It is also important to understand at the time the RAN had no program to buy Sea Harriers. Clearly they wanted and needed them but at first HMAS Australia (ex Invincible) was only going to operate Sea Kings with the Skyhawks and Trackers flying from shore until VTOL replacements for both types were acquired. A Sea Harrier, Sea Dart, Standard three layer air defence system would have been very effective at the time.

Sorry for the thread necromancy but discussions on another site reminded me of this discussion and reading between the lines of Abes comment reminds me of an often-overlooked impact of Australia's failure to replace Melbourne, and that is the reduction in the number of squadrons available to the ADF as a whole.

The effect of retiring the carrier was that one front lone and one second line squadron each of strike and fixed wing ASW aircraft were lost to the ADF going forward. There were not replaced, number of land based aircraft were not increased, they were simply gone.

 

[Ironmiked]

I know this threat is years old but here is the story with regards to the transfer of USS Iwo Jima:

Reagan Readied U.S. Warship for ’82 Falklands War (Naval Institute Press)​

By: Sam LaGrone // June 27, 2012

While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26.

Lehman and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger agreed to support U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the loan of the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima, he said.

“We agreed that [Weinberger] would tell the President that we planned to handle all these requests routinely without going outside existing Navy channels,” Lehman said in a speech provided to the U.S. Naval Institute he made in Portsmouth, U.K. “We would ‘leave the State Department, except for [Secretary of State Al] Haig, out of it.’”



Reagan approved the request without hesitation and his instructions to Weinberger had been simple, “Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it,” Lehman said in the speech.

At the time, the Royal Navy had deployed HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes to the Falklands. Each carrier fielded five vertical takeoff Sea Harriers armed with American Sidewinder missiles — all major components of the U.K.’s air war in the Falklands.
The contingency plan to provide a replacement carrier was developed at the Royal Navy’s request.
“As in most of the requests from the Brits at the time, it was an informal request on a ‘what if’ basis, Navy to Navy,” Lehman said.


USS Iwo Jima underway in 1984
[U.S. Naval Institute Archive]

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, commander of the U.S. Second Fleet at the time of the conflict, helped develop the plan to supply the Royal Navy with Iwo Jima if the Hermes or Invincible were lost. Though primarily a helicopter carrier, at least one Iwo Jima-class ship was qualified to operate the American version of the Sea Harrier, according to the 1982 edition of Combat Fleets of the World.
“We decided that the USS Iwo Jima would be the ship that would be the easiest for the British to operate and would make for a smooth transfer,” Lyons told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26. “We also identified ‘contract advisors’ who would be on board to help the British with some of the systems.”

The contract advisors needed to help operate the USS Iwo Jimawould have likely been retired sailors with knowledge of the ship’s systems, said current Combat Fleets editor, Eric Wertheim on June 26.

“The arrangement would have probably been a similar operation to The Flying Tigers, when the U.S. sent surplus aircraft to China and then recruited former pilots to fly the planes,” Wertheim said.
“Once the British took over the ship, the crew would have likely been supplemented by privately contracted Americans familiar with the systems.”

Iwo Jima would have functioned well as a replacement for the Invincible as both ships were close in size and function. “Even though the Hermes was a larger ship with more capabilities, Iwo Jima could have filled the gap,” Wertheim said.


HMS Invincible in 1982
[U.S. Naval Institute Archive]

HMS Hermes in 1982
[U.S. Naval Institute Archive]

Currently, tensions over the Falklands remain high since the U.K.’s 1982 victory. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received backlash from the British media in 2010 after she offered to mediate the dispute. Many British observers thought her offer indicated that the U.S. position of recognizing British sovereignty over the islands was fading.

 

[BlackBat242]

I know this threat is years old but here is the story with regards to the transfer of USS Iwo Jima:

.....

“We decided that the USS Iwo Jima would be the ship that would be the easiest for the British to operate and would make for a smooth transfer,” Lyons told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26. “We also identified ‘contract advisors’ who would be on board to help the British with some of the systems.”

The contract advisors needed to help operate the USS Iwo Jimawould have likely been retired sailors with knowledge of the ship’s systems, said current Combat Fleets editor, Eric Wertheim on June 26.

“The arrangement would have probably been a similar operation to The Flying Tigers, when the U.S. sent surplus aircraft to China and then recruited former pilots to fly the planes,” Wertheim said.
“Once the British took over the ship, the crew would have likely been supplemented by privately contracted Americans familiar with the systems.”

Iwo Jima would have functioned well as a replacement for the Invincible as both ships were close in size and function. “Even though the Hermes was a larger ship with more capabilities, Iwo Jima could have filled the gap,” Wertheim said.

Ummm - not "surplus" aircraft, and not just pilots:

P-40C* Tomahawks were sent straight from the factory to China (actually, Burma, which is where the squadron was formed and trained).

100 pilots and some 200 ground crew and administrative personnel were recruited (1 pilot had Visa problems and remained stateside, 10 US Army flight instructors went over in addition to the 99 pilots - some of those then joined as official AVG pilots.
30 more pilots followed later.


* AVG fighter aircraft came from a Curtiss assembly line which had just started producing Tomahawk IIB models for the Royal Air Force in North Africa. The Tomahawk IIB was similar to the U.S. Army's P-40C, but there is some evidence that Curtiss actually used leftover components when building the fighters intended for China, making them closer to the older P-40B/Tomahawk IIA specification - for instance the AVG aircraft had fuel tanks with external self-sealing coatings, rather than the more effective internal membranes as fitted to the P-40C/Tomahawk IIB.
In May 1942 50 new P-40Es were sent to the AVG - on 4 July 1942 the AVG was formally disbanded and absorbed into the USAAF as the 23rd Fighter Group.