RAN carrier program and earlier RAAF expansion

[Admiral Beez]

Let's have Australia expand its Air Force and naval aviation earlier than historical. We still have the economic limitations of the 1930s to consider.

Under the naval treaties when is the earliest Australia can consider aircraft carriers? My thinking is the RAN could formally/publicly begin its carrier program in/about 1937 (with informal plans starting in 1935 when HMS Ark Royal is laid down), with a plan for a pair of sub-20k ton, 28 knot light fleet carriers focused on maximizing the number of aircraft, ordance, avgas and bunker fuel along with habitability over armour and armament, similar to USS Wasp (CV-7). Britain (or the US) does not have the capacity to make aircraft carriers for Australia, so the RAN will need a homebuilt ship. What sort of carrier can Australia make? Presumably the RAN will visit the RN to view Ark Royal and perhaps the US yards.

As for the RAAF, what can be done if expansion starts earlier? I'd like to see a forward RAAF base on the existing bomber-length airfield(s) in PNG and (IIRC) the Solomons. What aircraft should CAC begin making from 1937 onwards? What about an earlier aero engine program? We don't want Aus dependent on Bristol or RR. When Australia began making Beauforts they used locally produced P&W engines, so that could be started earlier.

But again, it all comes down to money, so something will need to give if Australia is buying carriers and expanding aviation. Perhaps Australia can make some different and beneficial decisions for its national economy as part of a Depression recovery, a national employment scheme or new trade deals? 1930 to 1939 - Depression and Crisis. In 1935, ex-prime minister William 'Billy' Hughes wrote a book Australia and the War Today arguing against appeasement and in favour of rearmament, he was forced to resign from the Lyons government for his efforts. Billy Hughes - Wikipedia Maybe this is our turning point, Hughes' views are accepted.

 

[SaparotRob]

Were there any Australian flagged liners available for conversion?

 

[GTX]

You might like this: Southern Sea Eagles - The Alternative RAN FAA

 

[SaparotRob]

You might like this: Southern Sea Eagles - The Alternative RAN FAA

I'm outside right now. I gotta read this on the Big Screen. Thanks!

 

[fastmongrel]

Australia suffered very badly in the recession possibly the worst of the developed nations. The only way I can see this happening is if Australia and one or more of the other Dominions combined to pay.

 

[GTX]

Bah! Why let reality ruin a story.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Australia suffered very badly in the recession possibly the worst of the developed nations. The only way I can see this happening is if Australia and one or more of the other Dominions combined to pay.

Perhaps Canada could participate. Canada may have the ability, but Ottawa's eyes are on the Atlantic fleet, not the Pacific. So some diplomatic wrangling is in order.

As for ships for possible conversion, Canadian Pacific was one of the largest shipping lines in the interwar years, so ships for conversion may be had. List of ships of CP Ships - Wikipedia FWIW, Canadian Pacific and the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand jointly owned the Canadian-Australasian Line

If we reject the Canadian participation, then Australia will need to issue bonds or other debt. There's also the German Koloniale Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft (KORAG) request in/about 1935 for the return of their lost Pacific colonies. Australia can offer to sell them to Germany as a strong arm to force London and Washington to finance or guarantee the Australian bonds to finance the RAN carrier program.

 

[SaparotRob]

Perhaps Canada could participate. Canada may have the ability, but Ottawa's eyes are on the Atlantic fleet, not the Pacific. So some diplomatic wrangling is in order.

As for ships for possible conversion, Canadian Pacific was one of the largest shipping lines in the interwar years, so ships for conversion may be had. List of ships of CP Ships - Wikipedia FWIW, Canadian Pacific and the Union Steamship Company of New Zealand jointly owned the Canadian-Australasian Line

If we reject the Canadian participation, then Australia will need to issue bonds or other debt. There's also the German Koloniale Reichsarbeitsgemeinschaft (KORAG) request in/about 1935 for the return of their lost Pacific colonies. Australia can offer to sell them to Germany as a strong arm to force London and Washington to finance or guarantee the Australian bonds to finance the RAN carrier program.

I gotta tell you its not easy to find a candidate for carrier conversion among the ships listed. I looked at ships built post WW I in the hope of finding a ship that could do better than 20 knots and over 8000 tons. I think I found one CP liner, S.S. Empress of Japan. Probably too important. Of the the Union Steamship Co I thought I found a candidate, S.S. Monowai. Then I tried reading their bios to see if any were inactive or unprofitable (hard times equals reduced bookings). Not much info on Wiki. There are a few ships that are on the list but with no other info available on them. I'll leave it to better detectives.

 

[don4331]

GTX in the fools never differ category, I have the hull for a 1/72 CVL HMAS Albatross under construction. Should I ever get it done, you may have to squint a little, as the air group might look like late Martlets, not early FAA planes (Special Hobby models for Blackburn Skua* are triple the price of the Revell ones for the Grumman plane). I went with Skua despite its shortcomings as the air group is so small that I really couldn't justify TBs, and wanted some sort of fighter. My plan for the Skua was to replace Perseus with P & W Twin Wasp Junior - everything else is too underpowered or too heavy.

Care must be taken with Albatross to not make the deck too wide - her hull widens considerably above waterline. The flight deck on my model would be 135m x 19m (molded hull is 17.7m in beam). And last I checked Gladiators didn't have folding wings The result is I was working around an air group of ~6 planes - more like a training carrier or glorified MAC than offensive threat. Also, Albatross has top speed of only 22kn.

* I see Eastern Express has recently released a 1:72 Skua.

 

[SaparotRob]

You might like this: Southern Sea Eagles - The Alternative RAN FAA

That was a good read. All hail the god of frustration!

 

[Admiral Beez]

Let's also look at the RAAF. Australia didn't produce a single seat, single engined fighter until the Boomerang in summer 1942, entering service in 1943. Meanwhile Canada has been producing the Hawker Hurricane since 1938. Without relying on imported RR engines what fighter could the RAAF consider from 1937 onwards? My thinking is the Curtiss P-36 / Hawk 75.

 

[Shortround6]

If you can't build a Boomerang then building a Hawk 75 is really hard. Boomerang using the Wirraway's steel tube fuselage form of construction.

If you can't get RR engines then trying to get P & W or Wright engines may not be easy.

P&W doubled floor space from 1938 to 1939 due to French orders, doubled it again from 1939 to 1940 due to British orders. They might be able to sell a few engines, but not enough for a large program? Or what gets shorted?

Export Buffaloes got rebuilt air liner engines instead of new ones. What kind of Cyclones would the Australians get?

Australia built The R-1340 9 cylinder Wasp which lead them to build the R-1830 14 cylinder twin wasp. The Australians were learning to walk before they tried running.

People seem to want them to come out of the gate sprinting.

 

[Admiral Beez]

If you can't build a Boomerang then building a Hawk 75 is really hard.

Australia could build the Boomerang when it suited them to start. But license building an existing type like the Curtiss P-36 or (hopefully not) the Seversky P-35 doesn't require the design and development work.

 

[don4331]

Blackburn was building almost 200 Skua for FAA - I'm proposed about a dozen more - 1/2 airframes complete, maybe 1 with engine for reference. The other 1/2 as parts so CAC can use for creation of parts and jigs and training on manufacture.* I'm planning 2 years for the entire subcontractor network to be worked out. Companies like Ford had subsidiaries in Australia, so we just talking building parts to aircraft specifications, not recreating all the industries on Mars.

Same for P&W - instead of CAC starting production in '36 with Wasp, start with the Twin Wasp Junior (maybe even Twin Wasp, just set it back a bit in Skua to maintain balance). Again dozen complete engines and dozen broken down so engineers, assemblers can reference. Setting up the plant to build the core components while arranging subcontractor network over 2 years isn't coming out of the blocks sprinting. Manufacture of Hamilton Standard constant speed propellers falls into subcontractor network.

Taking HMAS Albatross into dock to convert from seaplane tender to CVL in 2 years isn't impossible task. Having a core pilots & fitter train aboard whichever CV the RN has at China Station - HMS Eagle & Hermes, I believe. RAN isn't KM/RM where they are starting from scratch, there are a bunch of old hands with >10 years experience to provide opinions.

So, starting 1/Jan/'36 having the ship, the planes, the engines ready to put to sea for 1/Jan/'38 wasn't coming out of the blocks sprinting - it was setting up all the pieces of furniture so we could cruise through the 1st baby steps. And no one in rest of world has been shorted.

Laying down a Town class CL (1936) hull at Cockatoo on the same 1/Jan/'36 date with plans to have it ready for commissioning as CVL on1/Sept/'39 isn't impossible either - Australia had built CLs in WWI, and Albratoss since (and historically made 3 Tribal DDs in WWII).

*There's a part of me that thinks Canada should build the airframes while Australia builds engines. The 2 countries actually compliment each other fairly well - Australia doesn't have aluminum/mass production techniques with Canada does, but Canada doesn't have the turbine/gear cutting shops/warship building facilities that Australia does. Each builds enough for themselves, and the other. Any excess capacity is available for locations like Singapore/South Africa/India/N. Ireland or even UK to procure (which helps "sell" it to the masses; it's not just a drain on Australia).

** I really wish there had been a radial powered folding wing Hawker Hurricane - it would be ideal for CAC to "cut their teeth" on - some tube frame, some doped fabric moving to the flush riveted aluminum monocoque constuction.

The transfer of technology 1/2 way around the world as RADAR, CIC, 100 octane fuel,etc make their mark will also be a challenge.

 

[Admiral Beez]

*There's a part of me that thinks Canada should build the airframes while Australia builds engines. The 2 countries actually compliment each other fairly well

This bugs me even today, when our RCN needs ships we start fresh instead of working with the RAN. Canada should have joined the Collins-class submarine program and the Canberra-class LHDs. We're finally both getting the Type 26 frigate, but sharing no resources or investment, instead building them in separate silos.

 

[Shortround6]

The Twin Wasp Junior is not a substitute for either the Mercury engine or the Perseus.
It was a dead end. Best versions made 825 hp for take-off and 750hp at 9000ft (max continuous, they didn't have a "military" rating)

It is too expensive for an ideal trainer engine.


This is from wiki so other sources would be welcome

"In light of the industrial circumstances, the production of cutting-edge high performance fighter aircraft, such as the Supermarine Spitfire, were viewed as being too ambitious and a potential jeopardy to the whole venture.[1]​ The government's position focused on the establishment of an industrial base capable of producing aircraft; thus, it was determined that the first aircraft to be domestically manufactured should be a reliable and established general purpose aircraft, while a long-term goal of proceeding to locally produce high-performance fighters would take around five years to attain."

"The aircraft selected by CAC was the North American Aviation (NAA) NA-16,[5]​ upon the recommendation of Lawrence Wackett.[6]​ The selection was heavily fuelled by the relatively low level of difficulty involved in the manufacture of both the airframe and its Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp radial engine. "

"During 1937, CAC was informed to prepare for the production of an initial batch of 40 aircraft, if the type proved satisfactory. In late June 1938, the Australian government announced that it had placed an order for 40 Wirraways;"

As for the P-36 " With the R-1830 engine, the Y1P-36 did so well that it won a 1937 Army competition, and on July 7, 1937, the Army ordered 210 P-36As, the largest single US military aircraft order since the First World War. Curtiss's private venture had finally paid off. "

and " The first production P-36A was delivered to Wright Field in April of 1938"

The P-36 barely existed during the time the decision was made to produce Wirraways.
By the outbreak of the 2nd world war CAC had built 6 (yes, six) production Wirraways.
Delaying things by canceling the Wirraway and trying to license a newer, more difficult airplane is unlikely to improve Australia's defensive abilities in 1940-41.

They did build 755 Wirraways in total.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Blackburn was building almost 200 Skua for FAA - I'm proposed about a dozen more….

The RAN does not need the Skua…. They'd be better off with Chesapeakes. The SB2U is faster and carries twice the bombload of the Skua, and uses easier to obtain US spares and engines.

Imagine this lot on a late 1930s RAN carrier. Yes, obsolete by 1942, but if the RAN carriers enter service in 1937-38 the Chesapeake will get the RAN off to a good start.

We now need a late 1930s fighter for the RAN, I suggest the Grumman Goblin over the Gladiator. This would be replaced by the Buffalo or early non-folding Martlet.

 

[Shortround6]

I suggest the Grumman Goblin over the Gladiator. This would be replaced by the Buffalo or early non-folding Martlet.

What have you got against the Australians?????
All of the ones I have met are very nice people.

The Gladiator is faster, climbs much better and has a much higher ceiling (like almost 50% higher).
And has four machine guns instead of two.
In fact the Wirraway was slightly faster, had about the same ceiling and climbed better at low altitude. It had about the same armament as the Goblin.

 

[Rowas]

Australia suffered very badly in the recession possibly the worst of the developed nations. The only way I can see this happening is if Australia and one or more of the other Dominions combined to pay.

The De Haviland DH 88 racing plane that won the England to Melbourne Australia in 1934 stimulated Australian interest in aircraft ranging from joy rides in the Sunderland flying boats to farmers using Tiger Moths. The DH88 specially built for the race, was the for-runner of the Mosquito. The popular DeHaviland DH 82 Tiger Moths were being assembled and made in Australia at that time.
At Sydney Airport, the Tiger Moths (required for training pilots) and other aircraft were being made. Production of the DH Mosquito took place at Sydney Airport, Bankstown Airport, and other factories nearby Sydney airport. Construction of the Mosquito was delayed because of a shortage of softwoods and balsa which were imported from Canada plus the softening of the English Casein glues in Sydney's and Asia's humidity which resulted in the structural failure of one of the first Australian built Mosquitos in 1942 while being tested by the De Haviland test pilot. Subsequently, urea formaldehyde glues were used in the local construction of Mosquitos.
Between 1938 and 1945, 755 Wirraways, 705 Beauforts, 250 Boomerangs, 365 Beaufighters, 104 Mosquitoes, 16 Mustangs and almost 2000 aircraft engines, such as the Prat and Whitney R1830 Wasp engines for the Beuforts, were assembled with Australian made parts ranging from ball bearings to guns. The Australian Beuforts had larger tails and other modifications . The manufacture of the aircraft and other war materials involved over a thousand sub-contractors ranging from Government Railway workshops to furniture manufacturers to radio component manufacturers. Marine engines were also manufactured for the US army and Australian forces. Unlike Canada, Australia was effectively isolated from its pre-war suppliers.

 

[Graeme]

Meanwhile Canada has been producing the Hawker Hurricane since 1938.

1938 or 1940?....