Shipbucket

Since I seem to be fairly active at the moment, here's one everyone can have a comment on.

The Australis Navy was looking to expand its Navy by the addition of an aircraft carrier. Funds were not available to build a purpose built ship so the Australis Navy went looking for a merchant ship that they could convert to an aircraft carrier. Languishing in Newcastle was a 600 foot cargo liner that was about 80-85% complete whose shipping line had gone bust in the Depression. The ship (Adelaide Star) was purchased and towed to the Cockatoo Naval Dockyard for conversion to an aircraft carrier operating fixed wing aircraft. 1930 started the conversion which was completed by 1933 and accepted for service in 1934. The Australis Navy was very happy with the ship and the Royal, Canadian and Southern African Navies had also taken note of the conversion. The Australis Navy decided to lay down more of the merchant hulls which could be used as merchant vessels till such time as they may have been required to be converted to aircraft carriers. 2 ships were laid down in 1937, 1 in 1938, 2 more in early 1939, then 4 more on the outbreak of war, a last batch of 3 were ordered in late 1940. The two laid down in 1937 were to be completed in 1939 as merchant ships but due to the Spanish civil war and the drawing of lines between Germany and Italy on one side and Britain and France on the other coupled with the Sino-Japanese war the ships were converted to aircraft carriers. In the end none of the ships plied their mercantile trades till after the war. Due to Australis' lack of experienced naval construction personnel, conversion of the ships averaged 2 - 2 1/2 years each.

The class ended up as three distinct batches, the main differences being in the bridge structure and minor AA weaponry. Changes of armament, from the original Batch 1 ships, changed out the single 4" by the bridge for quad 2pd pom poms and the quad 0.5" machine guns were replaced with single or twin 20mm. Those ships completed to that standard were batch 2. Eventually the batch 3 ships were completed with a uniform armament of 40mm weapons in single and twin mounts. Radar and other electronic equipment increased throughout the war. Because of the surfaced U-boat threat in the night wolf pack tactics, at least one 4" was kept in the stern. With only one 4" left of the original four mountings, the need for a dedicated HA/LA fire control director was minimal and the director was removed from the Batch 3 ships and replaced with a simple rangefinder. This was done retroactively on the Batch 1 & 2 ships as they were refitted to Batch 3 standards.



The Royal Navy liked the idea of having smaller aircraft carriers that could operate with the older rebuilt Battleships, that would allow the big Fleet Carriers to operate with the fast Battleships and Battlecruisers. To this end the Royal Navy sponsored the laying down of 3 of the Albatross class (called Tintagel Castle class in RN service) in 1937, another 1 in 1938, and 2 more in 1939. On the outbreak of war in 1939 the RN greatly increased their orders for this type of ship, with another 6 being ordered in late 1939, a further 6 in early 1940, 4 more in June 1940, and a final 2 in late 1940. 4 more were ordered through early 1941, and another 3 in later 1941. With the entry of the US into the war in late 1941, the US took over production of what became termed the Escort Carrier.

The first 6 RN ships were completed to the Albatross Batch 1 class standard. With the war built ships the Royal Navy made one major change that altered their tactical deployment potential, the ships machinery was altered from turbines to diesels. This was done to free up the production of turbines for more pressing needs. The change to diesels reduced the ships from 24 knots down to 18-19 knots. This change also allowed the ships to be able to be built in mercantile yards. The Canadian Navy built four of their own with turbines, 2 on the Pacific Coast and 2 on the North Atlantic Coast, the Southern African Navy manned two of the RN built ships.

A few Qs (again )

1) is it worth the HIACS on a ship with 4 x 4 (1 x 4 on II and III) inch AA (2 with bad sky arcs not matching the director ?) they are expensive so why not just a simple destroyer director.

2) On the subject of the stern 4 inch since it doesn't have good arcs or the sky would a none DP gun be better ? say 6inch would be much better at driving off a destroyer (as they ship is not a top line CV it may not have a good escort ?).

3) 1 x 4 isn't very powerful (and will not really drive off a destroyer) and RN fleet CVs spent time with only 2 DDs escort so this may have even less ?

4) Will the weapon on the port side not get flooded lots on such a small ship ? (would it be better just to put it in the island and fire cross deck, per war the RN didn't have deck parks so should be able to fire and 4 inch will not blast damage the deck ?)

5) Would these not eat lots of treaty tonnage (or does this AU have no WNT/LNT)

6) Why not have bigger lifts (so you can move none folding wing fighters (RAAF etc.) to transport them around ? Could you add more of them as well, say front middle rear ? (as your not an armoured deck CV?)

7) Do you want the arrestor wires so far back ?

None of the above really stops it from being a very cost effective ship and very useful come 39.

JSB

Howdy JSB,

Bring 'em on. No reason not to have questions.

1. The HACS on the batch 1 ships with 4x4 is probably ok, On the batch 2 ships it can probably also be used to control the 2pdr quads more than the 4". Not needed on the B3 ships as the 40mm had their own system tied to the radar.

2-4. The 4" reduce as the need for them reduce as surface/sub-surface ship interception decreased and Air intervention became more of a problem. I only keep a stern mounting because of known U-boat tactics. These are not small ships (they are bigger than most cruisers) and the port 4" is at the same height or higher than other CVE's with the same equipment needs.

5. There was ever only one of these completed within the treaty periods, the Albatross itself. The other ships laid down pre-war would have gone on to mercantile service if the treaties had not lapsed and the world situation had called for the ships to be completed as CV types.

6. No reason, those were the lifts that I did for the ship. As you say they could be a bit bigger, but at the stage these ships were designed there was no such things as 'Ferry Carriers' - let the US ships have that role if you like. As to adding more lifts, that would just reduce the number of aircraft carried by at least 6 per lift installed. On a CV this size more than 2 would be overkill.

7. Have a look at Bombheads Argus for placement. The only reason I have not added any more is I do not like showing them going over the lifts/elevators. Like to keep that clear to show folded wings.


On a completely different subject to JSB's questions,
I have been trying to work a timeline for the FAA if they had been brought in at 1930. At wars start I have the Skua as divebomber, the Hurricane as fighter and in my mind I have a variant of the Fairey Battle as the torpedo bomber. Would the Fairey Battle have been able to have been navalised?

Before people ask why not the Spitfire/Seafire - have a look at the statistics - More Seafires were lost to landing accidents than enemy action - not a good record to hold.

For the small carriers I keep the older types as shown on the Albatross.

Interesting idea.

HACS is probably better than any HA destroyer rangefinder.
I think the lifts are ok, best to have them at the ends of the hangar and these look about the right place.

A Fairey Battle torpedo-bomber sounds interesting. It is a big aircraft though and you might want something more compact, say like the Fulmar in size. The Fulmar grew out of the Battle replacement light bomber so that's probably your best inspiration.

_________________
Hood's Worklist
English Electric Canberra FD
Interwar RN Capital Ships
Super-Darings
Never-Were British Aircraft

My main thoughts,

Armament wise would you not want to be able to fight off a AMC (at least pre war/early war as its not much faster) ?
HMS Argus 4 x4' (ok this is the same )
HMS hermes 6 × 1 – 5.5-inch guns + 4 × 1 – 4-inch anti-aircraft guns
HMS Eagle 9 × 6-inch guns 5 × 4-inch anti-aircraft guns
HMS Courageous class 10 × 1 – BL 5.5-inch Mk I guns 6 × 1 – QF 4-inch Mk V AA guns
HMS Ark Royal 16 × 4.5 in
Would AUS not be thinking pre war more like making it a real war ship (trade protection CV) rather than a CVE ? (And thus wanting a heavier armament ?)
What about say 2 x 6 inch (stern) and 4 x4inch (2x2 each end of the island) ?

Fairey Battle torpedo-bomber why ! (not sure its a great plane) I would just have Sea Hurricane (with folding wings) and Swordfish at the start of the war + maybe a dive bomber ?

JSB

Very interesting idea, I like them. I like too that you've gone with the Hurricane - the Spitfire might have got all the glory but I have a real soft spot for the Hurricane

HMAS kiwi is an interesting choice in name, have you merged New Zealand and Australia to create Australis? If so then the name makes much more sense

_________________

Interesting idea indeed.