WesWorld

I didn't quite mean to open such a large can-of-worms with the New Zealand comment. Game mechanic-wise, they're clearly intended to be one entity, and Foxy did nothing to really portray NZ as anything other than part of Oz. My view is that NZ is a separate dominion for political and home-rule purposes, but clearly at some point in the 20s, rather than developing separate navies, they have a combined service, and I intend to continue operating them as such for the most part. I would also say it's safe to assume that unless a specific mention is made of the NZ government having a differing opinion, they generally concur with Australia (and the larger commonwealth) on international affairs.

That being said, some ships I'm going to assume were NZ funded, and have them operate as His Majesty's New Zealand Ship, and operated by crews primarily drawn from NZ; mostly larger prestige ships with New Zealand derived names, and whatever smaller forces end up being based out of NZ itself. Mostly drawing on the WWI-era precedent of NZ paying for a battlecruiser, but it operated with the larger RN for the most part, and to a lesser extent all the Commonwealth ships operating with the RN during WWII. Canada and Oz are larger than historical and capable of fielding mostly independent navies, but NZ is still better off contributing to a larger force than striking out on their own.

Quoted from "thesmilingassassin"

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

To be fair, your Vengeance is pretty long-in-tooth by now....

No ones ever made that comment when referencing Warspite or Hood's looks. In Warspites case she was quite long in the tooth.

The comment is directed less towards her aesthetic appeal, and more to the conundrum of both ships coexisting; the RAN has retired it's WWI era ships, and the RCN is eyeing the retirement of it's own contemporary WWI battlecruisers, surely such discussions are happening in the Lantean admiralty.

Personally, I am not really interested in the nitty-gritty details of how Australia and New Zealand get along. Unless they are going to start to work at cross-purposes (which I can't believe will happen) it will make little difference to the progress of the game. I am just happy to have an active player tending that particular part of Wesworld's garden.

As I said, unless I can fathom some reason for Oz and NZ to disagree on some tangent of international relations, it's not a separation I expect to delve too deeply into, or factor into anything of relevance beyond Commonwealth minutia. The main effect I see is that It may come up in Hood's news reports when it comes to the nuts and bolts of commonwealth internals, and don't be surprised if you see HMNZS instead of HMAS.

I'm with Bruce, however Australia, New Zealand and Britain deal with their ships/transfers is their business.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

The comment is directed less towards her aesthetic appeal, and more to the conundrum of both ships coexisting; the RAN has retired it's WWI era ships, and the RCN is eyeing the retirement of it's own contemporary WWI battle cruisers, surely such discussions are happening in the Lantean admiralty.

Well seeing as you mention it, yes Atlantis is looking at the prospect of retiring the Vengeance and Glory as well as their carrier cousins in addition to the Melampus and Tyrrhenia classes, reviewing which to place in reserve and which will be scrapped. Anything older will either be scrapped or preserved as museums. In fact Atlantis is also reviewing when the Memnon and Philomedes classes will likely be retired, the Memnon's will likely receive one last minor refit before they are retired, ditto for the newer Philomedes class. The conundrum is that with every retirement each surface fleet will be restructured to take into account the lack of big gun/AA support in a world still filled with many large battleships built with aircraft defense in mind. That eventually means that only 6 large battleships will be around to escort the CV's.

Nobody has ever taken up the reins of a nation yet and not found some odd skeletons lurking in the back of the cupboard!
As the Crown player I see New Zealand as a Dominion. As has been said, that in no way prevents the armed services of Australia and New Zealand forming a joint command and forces during the 1920s. I think it makes perfect sense for them to have done so and I see no reason to separate them and I think Shin's proposal is the sensible one.

Likewise as I flesh out some of the air stuff (and maybe some of the army details, though we may skimp on this unless any IC actions require further detailed details) the same common structure will apply.

Would there be any objections to me retrospectively adding some Australian trainers like the Wirraway and Wackett?
Foxy does seem to have neglected the training fleet apart from some Tiger Moths and a few hand-me-down fighters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Wackett

Quoted from "Hood"

Would there be any objections to me retrospectively adding some Australian trainers like the Wirraway and Wackett?
Foxy does seem to have neglected the training fleet apart from some Tiger Moths and a few hand-me-down fighters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Wackett

No, not really.

Fine by me.

My thoughts on the air side of things as I continue to lick things into shape.

I have not yet fully decided whether I will split the New Zealand-based aircraft into the OTL RNZAF, which seems logical, or as a wing of the RAAF.

I am still honing a sensible OOB to inform the equipment choices but my thoughts based off Foxy's specs and OOB information. I am loathe to retconn too many British equipment sales to Australia so I'm focusing on home-built items and keeping everything reasonably modest.
My currents ideas are outline belowed.

Fighters
By 1949 the RAAF would have a force of:
150 Fokker Australian FA-51B Mustang II
50 Australian Aviation AA-51C Mustang III, replacing the AA-5 Kelpie and AA-54 Swoose Goose as Foxy had intended from 1944. Having put a lot of effort into the Spruce Goose it seems even Foxy saw its limitations and had it posted as a failure in service.
50 Hawker Tornado, acquired in 1940, possibly still retained in reserve. The RAF retired their fleet a few years ago so spare airframes and engines would be available. Or I may just scrap them (see fighter-bombers below)
50 Gloster S.44 Reaper, acquired in 1940 as a long-range and nightfigther, will soldier on for now until replacement in the early 1950s with the OTL CAC-23 project which seems feasible for Australia to produce in WW. Probably will use the original Tays.
AA-5 Kelpie, AA-54 Swoose Goose and Fokker-Avia D.XXI are all scrapped by 1949.

New fighters will be needed. Foxy had his XP-67 programme to replace the AA-54. I don't know the details but I know he wanted to produce prototypes with 3 different types of turboprops before embarking on a production type. Given his penchant for copying US advanced types I assume this would have been a cloned McDonnell XP-67 with turboprops. Foxy always preferred turboprops for Australia because of fuel economy and range. If there are no objections I will put the AA-67 into service around 1947/48. Probably around 50 to be built.
A new jet fighter seems likely to replace the bulk of the P-51B clones which are aging. I have in mind three ideas; in keeping with Foxy's love of hybrid designs I have toyed with a DH Vampire development using the OTL Nene-powered Australian Vampire as a basis but with modified wings as the DHA-2 Spider Crab. Or given the long-range desires of the RAAF, the Gloster AXP-1001 developed for Argentina with a Nene and 1,000 mile range looks ideal for the RAAF. Either could be in service by the end of 1949 in small numbers. A Hawker P.1081 order is likely too for the early 1950s as a local-defence interceptor.

By 1949 the RAAF would have a force of:
70 Hawker Sea Fury FN.Mk.I
20 Gloster G.45 Sea Meteor FSN.Mk.VI, land-based
The CAC-11 Strix being a late 1930s design is obsolete and probably out of structural life and would all be scrapped.
10 (?) Australian Aviation AA-39 Monarch, airship fighter, given small number I might just replace with more CF-14s
126 (?) De Havilland Canada CF-14 Monarch, airship fighters, delivered with the additional airships Canada has supplied and listed by Shin on the encyclopedia.
Given the small carriers the Sea Fury looks set to remain in service, I might add numbers if there is a serious shortfall. The airship fighter fleet looks substantial now.

Attack
150 Hawker Tempest FB.Mk.VA, acquired 1944 as replacement for Hurricanes and Henleys. This effectively gives the RAAF 350 single-engine fighters, so making retaining the Tornado a wasteful proposition.
50 Australian Aviation AA-6 Dragonfly, now 8-9 years old, probably needing replacing but I like this little tandem wing design. I might work up a modernised version with newer engines. Given the size of the RANAS though, I'm not sure the RAAF needs a dedicated coastal attack type.

Bombers
100 Bristol Buckingham, in service since 1941, Foxy had posted an RFP for a longer-ranged replacement as early as 1942 but it never came to pass and I have no idea what he was planning. They remain in service. It would be logical to assume that the RAAF would have acquired heavy bombers as it did OTL but the attack/bombing fleet seems optimised for Army support. I'm open to thoughts here. I'd love a fleet of Lincolns or something but not sure how feasible that is.

The RANAS has:
40 Commonwealth CAC-14 Wombat, land-based torpedo-bombers, in service since 1937 and badly in need of replacement
90 Douglas Dauntless, 1930s, some of these probably still exist on the hybrid carriers (see below)
190 BCAC Type 162 Bathurst, 1944, acquired in 3 variants, torpedo-bomber (replacing Albacore), reconnaissance with ASV and seaplane (replacing Curtiss Seagull). Foxy indicated 190 were brought, apparently to replace the Albacore and Dauntless, but the seaplanes would replace Seagulls and not Dauntlesses, so there is a shortfall. In any case the Bathurst is a dated design but anything much bigger won't fit on the smaller hybrids.
I might acquire some heavier torpedo bombers for Enterprise & Endeavour and leave these to solider on in recon and seaplane roles.

Maritime Patrol
The RAAF has:
40 de Havilland Australia DH.93 Albatross Mk V
20 BCAC Type 178 Argus MR.Mk.I

The RANAS has 40 Commonwealth Pelican flying boats, been around since 1937. Foxy was always sceptical of flying boats but given the terrain and nature of New Guinea I think more should have been brought. I am going to develop a Mk II and double this number.

Trainers
The training fleet was woefully outdated with 50 DH.82 Tiger Moths and 40 Sea Moths and 50
Miles M.9 Masters from the 1930s. The only other trainers were hand-me-down fighters such as the AA-3 Centaur and CAC-9 Skua. Most of these would be worn out by 1949.
Therefore I have added 200 Commonwealth CAC-12 Wackett Trainers to replace the Tiger Moths, 40 Commonwealth CAC-16 Wirraways as armed advanced trainers for the fighter/bomber crews and I have brought forward development of the OTL CAC-25 Winjeel trainer and 162 will enter service from mid-1949.

Transports
Foxy never outlined any transport aircraft at all. I have assumed licence-built DH.84 Dragons for transport and to serve as navigation and radio operator trainers. These will need replacing and the best candidate is the DHA-3 Drover which in WW entered service around 1946.

Quoted from "Hood"

I have not yet fully decided whether I will split the New Zealand-based aircraft into the OTL RNZAF, which seems logical, or as a wing of the RAAF.

Splitting them could make for an interesting degree of derivation - sometimes NZ selects one type, while AUS gets another, but they're still joined at the hip for most of their procurement...

Quoted from "Hood"

Bombers
100 Bristol Buckingham, in service since 1941, Foxy had posted an RFP for a longer-ranged replacement as early as 1942 but it never came to pass and I have no idea what he was planning. They remain in service. It would be logical to assume that the RAAF would have acquired heavy bombers as it did OTL but the attack/bombing fleet seems optimised for Army support. I'm open to thoughts here. I'd love a fleet of Lincolns or something but not sure how feasible that is.

Maybe an oversized squadron or a small wing formed up to conduct a sort of mixed operational-training role?

Quoted from "Hood"

190 BCAC Type 162 Bathurst, 1944, acquired in 3 variants, torpedo-bomber (replacing Albacore), reconnaissance with ASV and seaplane (replacing Curtiss Seagull). Foxy indicated 190 were brought, apparently to replace the Albacore and Dauntless, but the seaplanes would replace Seagulls and not Dauntlesses, so there is a shortfall. In any case the Bathurst is a dated design but anything much bigger won't fit on the smaller hybrids.
I might acquire some heavier torpedo bombers for Enterprise & Endeavour and leave these to solider on in recon and seaplane roles.

Yes, that's one of the big shortfalls of the smaller carriers that got built in the early 30s (and late 20s). I'm seeing a fair bit of it with the Russian aircraft carrier fleet and the old CVE-style merchant conversions.

Quoted from "Hood"

Transports
Foxy never outlined any transport aircraft at all. I have assumed licence-built DH.84 Dragons for transport and to serve as navigation and radio operator trainers. These will need replacing and the best candidate is the DHA-3 Drover which in WW entered service around 1946.

Given some similarity in terrain, etc, the Chilean Constelación aircraft firm would be very eager to sell their Serie-400 Twin Condor in Australia, possibly to the extent that they'd be willing to offer a license at some pretty good terms, or put together their own local subsidiary and factory. The Serie-500 aircraft, which should enter service in 1949, will have turboprops.

Quoted from "Hood"

I am loathe to retconn too many British equipment sales to Australia so I'm focusing on home-built items and keeping everything reasonably modest.

My kneejerk reaction for a lot of this is "buy Canadian", which generally falls in line with my overall feeling that the Commonwealth should be pursuing commonality whenever feasible, but I also want to make sure I don't default to Canadian too much simply because of my own bias. Another thing to consider is both Canada and Oz had fairly close ties with the US, and Oz tended to have more American products in their aviation stable than Canada.

Quoted from "Hood"

I have not yet fully decided whether I will split the New Zealand-based aircraft into the OTL RNZAF, which seems logical, or as a wing of the RAAF.

I'm in favor of a separate New Zealand Air Force and Army, but ones that closely coordinates and to some degree are subservient to the larger Australian branches. In many ways, those branches are easier to do so with than the Navy, so I don't see a compelling argument for them not to be nominally independent for national pride purposes, at the very least. The general idea is that the locals are best at deciding what to do locally for the day-to-day operations, but they answer to Oz/the Crown on what they're expected to contribute to the larger whole in strategic terms.

Quoted from "Hood"

Foxy was always sceptical of flying boats but given the terrain and nature of New Guinea I think more should have been brought.

This is the first I've heard of Foxy's skepticism towards flying boats, and is in fact rather perplexing considering how much of his fleet seems dedicated to supporting seaplane operations.

Quoted from "Hood"

I might acquire some heavier torpedo bombers for Enterprise & Endeavour and leave these to solider on in recon and seaplane roles.

I think I mentioned this privately, but I'm currently planning on pairing up each of the hybrid carriers with one of the regular carriers, and varying their squadrons to complement each other; the hybrid being a gunline escort and fighter/scout specialist to the larger carriers handling heavier strike packages.

Quoted from "Hood"

10 (?) Australian Aviation AA-39 Monarch, airship fighter, given small number I might just replace with more CF-14s
126 (?) De Havilland Canada CF-14 Monarch, airship fighters, delivered with the additional airships Canada has supplied and listed by Shin on the encyclopedia.

The DHC CF-14s would more rightly be CAC-35s if we're pursuing our original intent with those being Australian designs through Foxy's pursuit of the Miles line. I was only having DHC produce them because after we went through the trouble of putting that project together for him, he flat out refused them. DHC would likely produce some to replacing the aging CF-8s for Canadian service, but the design would originate from Oz. I also believe we'd floated the CAC-35 as a carrier-based fighter being suited for those short RAN decks.

I'm not sure how the AA-39 came about. Foxy lists it based on the M39 as an airship fighter, but I believe the M35 (CAC-35/DHC-14) is a better platform for that purpose.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

My kneejerk reaction for a lot of this is "buy Canadian", which generally falls in line with my overall feeling that the Commonwealth should be pursuing commonality whenever feasible, but I also want to make sure I don't default to Canadian too much simply because of my own bias. Another thing to consider is both Canada and Oz had fairly close ties with the US, and Oz tended to have more American products in their aviation stable than Canada.

I agree with you about commonality. I will raid the Canadian and US aviation supermarkets but the main caveat is that both nations are rather behind with updated aircraft specs. TheCanadian never got round to posting most of the US air stuff I created for him and even as you admitted the other week, the Canadian encyclopedia needs updating as well. My thoughts are, Canada for bombers and utility transports, US for a modern carrier-based torpedo bomber, long-range transports. But Australia has a large industrial basis for its needs so they need some work too.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

I'm in favor of a separate New Zealand Air Force and Army, but ones that closely coordinates and to some degree are subservient to the larger Australian branches. In many ways, those branches are easier to do so with than the Navy, so I don't see a compelling argument for them not to be nominally independent for national pride purposes, at the very least. The general idea is that the locals are best at deciding what to do locally for the day-to-day operations, but they answer to Oz/the Crown on what they're expected to contribute to the larger whole in strategic terms.

I will split them. I have so far allocated them 2 fighter and 2 bomber squadrons and flying training school.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

This is the first I've heard of Foxy's skepticism towards flying boats, and is in fact rather perplexing considering how much of his fleet seems dedicated to supporting seaplane operations.

I'm talking about long-range flying boats rather than small seaplane scouts. Well he created the Albatross II for maritime patrol and then asked for the Britannia based Argus. When I pointed out a flying boat might make more sense at the time he came up with the Albatross, he felt the flying boat lacked endurance and range. But in terms of coverage and basing more flying boats would have made sense. OTL New Zealand used flying boats well into the post-war era and the RNZAF will be picking up more in WW.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

I think I mentioned this privately, but I'm currently planning on pairing up each of the hybrid carriers with one of the regular carriers, and varying their squadrons to complement each other; the hybrid being a gunline escort and fighter/scout specialist to the larger carriers handling heavier strike packages.

At the moment under Foxy's OOB there are not actually enough modern fighters for the carrier fleet! Once I get the strike force sorted I think this will be feasible. I envision 24 fighters aboard the hybrid and another 12 on the larger carrier with 36 or more strike aircraft.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

The DHC CF-14s would more rightly be CAC-35s if we're pursuing our original intent with those being Australian designs through Foxy's pursuit of the Miles line. I was only having DHC produce them because after we went through the trouble of putting that project together for him, he flat out refused them. DHC would likely produce some to replacing the aging CF-8s for Canadian service, but the design would originate from Oz. I also believe we'd floated the CAC-35 as a carrier-based fighter being suited for those short RAN decks.

I'm fine calling them the CAC-35 and the Canadians of course are more than welcome to buy more. I remember discussion of it becoming a carrier-based fighter, I will need to revisit the specs to see if this is feasible. I would think the structural provisions for airship and carrier use would be somewhat different.

Quoted from "ShinRa_Inc"

I'm not sure how the AA-39 came about. Foxy lists it based on the M39 as an airship fighter, but I believe the M35 (CAC-35/DHC-14) is a better platform for that purpose.

Yes, that was pointed out at the time. It is what it is now, doing the best with what I've got. I think as an attack aircraft the AA-39 makes more sense but probably needs more power from the engines.
There are 10 sets of Vickers 'S' gun pods laying around too that I will probably rig up to the Tempests.

I approve the selection of the BCAC Wayfarer. It is well suited to Australian needs.

I've decided to ditch the XP-67 clone, the aerodynamics were not amazing OTL, especially around the stall and I doubt Australian Aviation could easily fix that even with sim 'hand waving'. Also, the RAAF has stacks of fighters.

I've been tinkering with a replacement multi-role bomber to replace the Buckingham, Wombat and Dragonfly. It retains the Miles M.39 canard layout used on the AA-6 Dragonfly but beefed up all round and with turboprop power.
This looks feasible but a once over by other eyes wouldn't hurt.

AA-15

Crew: 2
Length: 32 ft (9.75 m)
Wingspan: Front 29 ft (8.22 m); Rear 50 ft (15.24 m)
Height: 12 ft (3.65 m)
Wing area: Front 80 ft² (7.43 m²); Rear 520 ft² (48.03 m²)
Empty weight: 24,000 lb (10,885 kg)
Loaded weight: 35,000 lb (15,875 kg)
Powerplant: 2× Rolls-Royce RB.39 Clyde II turboprop, 3,020shp + 1,225lb residual thrust (2,252 kW + 5,560 kN)
Maximum speed: 425 mph (683 km/h)
Range: 2,300 miles (3,700 km) (with external fuel tanks 3,500 miles (5,630 km))
Ceiling: 31,000 ft (9,450 m)
Armaments: 4x 30 mm ADEN cannon (nose-mounted); bombload up to 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) including 1x 21in torpedo

on further contemplation, i've decided to rename the Charon class to mimic Canadian practice of tribal names for it's large destroyers. I've dredged up a fair amount of names, and the Charons will be christened as;

Koori
Goorie
Murri
Murrawarri

(Fair warning for Hood- the RN doesn't appear to have an HMS Maori, and the RAN will be wanting that name for a future ship)

Noted. I wasn't planning an HMS Maori any time soon, figuring it would be used by the RAN at some point.

Oz's industrial reports have been hammered out and brought almost up to date. Giving the board a chance to find problems with them before I move forward any further.

Foxy had a Q1/45 report, but the comments on it were....contentious, so I elected to do the entire year.

The reports look ok to me so far.



I need some help choosing a new torpedo bomber. I had this earmarked for US-purchase.
Jason was seemingly going for the AD-1 Skyraider based off the SS report of his last carrier design. I have also supposed Grumman still has a wing in this game and have come up with the OTL TB3F-1S, which in OTL was re-roled as an ASW platform.
Either design looks good, the Skyraider perhaps having the edge on size and weight limits, its 50ft span matching the previous Australian torpedo bombers so I know it will fit ok.
Any thoughts?

Grumman TB3F-1 Guardian
Crew: two, pilot and navigator
Length: 43 ft 4 in (13.21 m)
Wingspan: 60 ft 8 in (18.49 m) (25 ft (7.62 m) folded)
Height: 16 ft 2 in (5.08 m)
Wing area: 560 ft² (52.03 m²)
Empty weight: 14,580 lb (6,613 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 22,640 lb (10,270 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney R-2800-44 Double Wasp radial engine, 2,300 hp (1,700 kW)
Maximum speed: 248 mph (399 km/h) at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)
Range: 1,500 mi (1,304 nmi, 2,415 km)
Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4600 m)
Rate of climb: 1,850 ft/min (9.4 m/s)
Rockets: 6× 5 in (127 mm) unguided High velocity aircraft rocket (HVAR) rockets
Bombs: 2 × 20 mm Oerlikon FFB(A) cannon (250rpg); 4,000 lb (1,814 kg) of bombs, torpedoes, and depth charges and/or 8 × 3in (76mm) unguided rocket projectles
RDF Set: AN/APS-4 surface search (ventral radome)

Douglas AD-1 Skyraider
Crew: One
Length: 38 ft 10 in (11.84 m)
Wingspan: 50 ft 0¼ in (15.25 m)
Height: 15 ft 8¼ in (4.78 m)
Wing area: 400.3 ft² (37.19 m²)
Empty weight: 10,470 lb (4,749 kg)
Max. takeoff weight: 18,029 lb (8,178 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Wright R-3350-24W radial engine, 2,500 hp (2,000 kW)
Maximum speed: 321 mph (517 km/h)
Cruise speed: 198 mph (319 km/h)
Range: 1,553 mi (2,500 km)
Service ceiling: 26,000 ft (7,925 m)
Rate of climb: 2,300 ft/min (11.6 m/s)
Guns: 4 × 20 mm Oerlikon FFB(A) with 200 rounds per gun
Hardpoints: 15 external hardpoints with a capacity of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of bombs, torpedoes, mines and 3in (76mm) unguided rockets

If historicity is any guide, the Skyraider would be the far better choice.

I would agree, its the better fit dimensionally and has the better performance.
It lacks a radar but the RANAS still has the radar-equipped Bathurst scout variant which could be used for scouting thus allowing the Skyraiders to concentrate on the strike role.
So I think I will go with the Skyraider.