AHC: Strong Post War Royal Australian Navy

The only condition is that the RAN must have 2 carriers available similar to how the Marine Nationale had the Foch and Clemenceau.
 
The Melbourne-Voyager collision caused major ripples for a decade or so.

8.56 pm 10th February 1964 the RAN Daring class destroyer Voyager swung across the path of the carrier Melbourne, was struck, cut in two and sank with the loss of 82 people on Voyager. In my TL Melbourne went in for the Skyhawk/Tracker refit in mid 1963, a refit that IOTL took 14 months, so the Melbourne-Voyager collision will not occur.

  • Feb-May 64 HMAS Melbourne in dock being repaired.
MelbourneAfterDamage.jpg

  • Feb 18 HMS Duchess was offered by the RN as a no-cost, 4 year loan, this offer was accepted on Feb 23.
  • Apr-Nov 64 HMAS Duchess transferred and went into refit.
  • Mid-Late 64 River class DEs ordered, ostensibly to replace the capability of the Voyager during the 4 year loan period of the Duchess, they entered service in 1970.
  • Nov 64 COSC proposal for 4th DDG rejected by Cabinet, the air threat is deemed insufficient.
  • Mar 66 project directive released to refit Vendetta and Vampire with Ikara ASW missile and Seacat SAM
  • 66 DDL project started, first defined as 1000t Frigate, up to 10 planned
  • 67 talks with the RN about joint development of what became the Type 21, 5 planned
  • Oct 67 Duchess loan extended for another 4 years, until Apr 72.
  • Nov 68 joint project ended because RAN DDL 'requirements' diverged from RN.
  • Sep 69 Due to a lack of DDGs HMAS Vendetta does deployment to Vietnam.
  • 69 Plans to refit Vampire and Vendetta with Ikara and Seacat abandoned due to cost, ~ $20 million.
  • Jun 70 DDL defined as 2100t, 2 x 5” guns and light helicopter.
  • Late 70 'requirements' change to include Standard SM1 SAM and 2 helicopters. (how much difference 6 years makes)
  • Aug 72 Duchess purchased outright for 150,000 pounds and refitted into training ship.
  • Aug 72 McMahon government approves DDL design; 4200t, 5” gun, SM1 SAM, 2 helicopters, Olympus GT engines. 3 ships planned from 1975 costing $210 million. ALP Opposition opposes this design.
DDLKokoda34.jpg

  • Dec 72, ALP takes power after 23 years in Opposition.
  • Jan 73 Defence Minister orders Review of DDL project and comparison of US, Dutch and British designs.
  • Aug 73 DDL project cancelled after $1.7 million expended, Type 42 with SM1 SAM & 5" gun and Oliver Hazard Perry compared. T42 recommended with some doubt about SAM and 5", OHP considered 2nd rate.
  • Apr 74 ALP Government rejects T42-SM1 recommendation due to integration concerns and approves OHP.
  • Late 75 new Fraser Coalition Government reviews DDL again and decides it is no longer viable.
  • Feb 76 2 OHP ordered, but no helicopters.
  • Late 77 third OHP ordered.
  • Fourth OHP ordered sometime between 77-80 to longer Flight III design compatible with the SH60B Seahawk helicopter.
  • 1980 5th and 6th Flight III OHP ordered from Williamtown shipyard.
  • Mid 80s 16 S70B Seahawks ordered for OHPs.

As far as I'm concerned pretty much all of this bullshit, particularly the DDL nightmare, could be avoided without the Melbourne-Voyager collision.
 
I think ideally from the late 50s the RAN escort force should consist of 3 classes of 4 ships. The 4 River DEs, 4 Perth DDGs and 4 DDLs based on the RN Type 21 or Brazilian Niteroi class replacing the ANZAC and Darings from the very early 70s.
 
Because I can't let this go, I'll go on about Submarines and Amphibious capability.

In my mind a better bet than the British Oberon subs would have been the US Barbel class. The Oberons were the final gasp of the WW2 style sub whereas the Barbel was the new 'Albacore' style.

As for amphibious ships, the RN wasn't interested in amphibious capabilities; in 1955 they disposed of the British LST Mk3s (3100t) they acquired at the end of WW2 nor did they want to reactivate the Sydney as a troop transport. The Army was so poorly served that they acquired 4 ex-US LSMs (750t) in 1959, it was these green-painted ships that supported the Army in Vietnam.

crock%20cent.jpg


In the late 60s these ships were to be replaced by the LSM MkII, but the Navy wanted a sealed bow for 20kts and sailing in convoy whereas the Army wanted ships with bow doors for beaching. This argument was not resolved, the LSM MkII languished and the Army paid for 8 LCM-H (500t) to replace the 4 LSM-Mk I (750t), note the difference that one is a Ship and the other a Craft. The Navy finally bought a single British LSL of the type used in the Falklands, built in Australia, by 1986.

Ideally the Navy should have replaced the LST Mk3s from the mid 50s with another sea going LST, but failing that build the LSM-Mk II or bigger LST from 1970.

Which bring me to another issue; shipbuilding. Australian yards built the 3 Darings, 6 Rivers so the capacity is there. If the RAN had 3 classes of 4 escorts, a class of LST/LSM and a class of 6 submarines then their replacement could justify a continuous build of Navy ships and keep Australian dockyards open and subject to continual improvement investments.
 
The only condition is that the RAN must have 2 carriers available similar to how the Marine Nationale had the Foch and Clemenceau.
You haven't given a POD for this but from the 2 Clemenceau type aircraft carriers I infer that it's 1945.

Correction, I didn't read the title properly, i.e. AHC: Strong Post War Royal Australian Navy. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
I think ideally from the late 50s the RAN escort force should consist of 3 classes of 4 ships. The 4 River DEs, 4 Perth DDGs and 4 DDLs based on the RN Type 21 or Brazilian Niteroi class replacing the ANZAC and Darings from the very early 70s.
I'd go for 16 in 1970 as follows:
4 Adams class DDG - 4th ship ordered 1963
4 Daring class DD - Waterhen not cancelled 1954
6 Type 12 FF ordered 1950 - The fifth and sixth ships weren't cancelled in 1956
2 Type 12 FF ordered 1964 - to replace Anzac and Tobruk​

However, the first 6 Type 12 would be built as Rothesay class and rebuilt along the same lines as the British Rothesays were, i.e. they would be fitted with facilities for one Wasp helicopter instead of Ikara. The last 2 would be built as broad-beamed Leanders, so again facilities for one Wasp helicopter instead of Ikara, but they would retain the electronics of the OTL ships.

As I'm assuming that money was no object the Daring class would have a major refit in the 1960s which would include having Tatar or Standard MR installed.
 
Which bring me to another issue; shipbuilding. Australian yards built the 3 Darings, 6 Rivers so the capacity is there.
However, the building times of these ships seem too long to me. Was that the fault of the shipyards, the equipment suppliers or the Australian Government?

Would ordering more ships help by producing a rolling programme?
 
When did people start seeing LHDs as humanitarian platforms? It might be the only way to justify flat tops.
 
You haven't given a POD for this but from the 2 Clemenceau type aircraft carriers I infer that it's 1945.
Australia could buy Centaur in the 60's when Melbourne wrecks herself and then later buy Hermes in 72 to serve alongside her. Skyhawks and Trackers would be ideal for the two ships. Following the Gulf war two Harrier Carriers of about the same size could be built as replacements.

 
Last edited:
fitted with facilities for one Wasp helicopter instead of Ikara.

Not to nitpick, but you could have both. Ikara was mounted in place of the forward 4.5" turret, the Wasp facilities replaced one or both (can't remember) of the stern-mounted Limbo mortars. I know some of the Leanders had that exact combination.
 
Not to nitpick, but you could have both. Ikara was mounted in place of the forward 4.5" turret, the Wasp facilities replaced one or both (can't remember) of the stern-mounted Limbo mortars. I know some of the Leanders had that exact combination.
You are probably thinking of the 8 RN Leander class which in the 1970s had their 4.5" turret replaced by Ikara, while retaining the facilities for the Wasp helicopter and the single Limbo aft.

However, I will nit pick, by stating that I don't want both. I want the 4.5" turret and a helicopter or the 4.5" turret and Ikara.
 
Some notes from the OTL Jane's Fighting Ships 1953-54

ROYAL AUSTRALIAN NAVY


Navy Estimates

1949-50: £A 18,500,000
1950-51: £A 23,500,000
1951-52: £A 34,444,000
1952-53: £A 47,290,000

H.M Australian Fleet

Flag Officer Commanding H.M. Australian Fleet: Rear-Admiral J.W.M. Easton D.S.O., D.S.C., (lent from Royal Navy).

On Jan. 1, 1949 the Royal Australian Navy changed the title of His Majesty's Australian Squadron to His Majesty's Australian Fleet. On the death of King George VI and the succession of Queen Elisabeth II the title was altered to Her Majesty's Australian Fleet.

The Naval programme provides for the establishment of a strong and compact striking force of 36 ships with a reserve of 80 vessels. It will be capable of operating independently as a task force or in co-operation with Allied naval forces. It is intended that the R.A.N. will have 2 aircraft carriers, 3 cruisers, 9 destroyers, 11 fast frigates, 14 [slow] frigates, 28 ocean minesweepers, 4 coastal minesweepers and miscellaneous small vessels.

Personnel

1953: 14,541 officers and ratings. The Women's Royal Australian Naval Service has been re-established. WRANS (total 1 Jan. 1953: 271) are employed on clerical, communications, stores and other administrative duties.

New Construction

£A 75,000,000 was allocated in 1947 for a 5-year Defence programme, including cost of: 2 new light fleet carriers transferred from R.N. (H.M.A.S. Sydney already delivered), and 6 destroyers, to be built in Australia (H.M.A.S. Tobruk and Anzac already commissioned).

In 1952 £A 559,000,000 was allocated to Defence Departments to be spend on a three-year defence programme, under which the naval building programme was to be greatly expanded. The Navy's allocation is £A 137,000,000.

The new construction programme announced in 1952 includes 3 boom working vessels, 4 coastal minesweepers, and 4 seaward defence boats.
As far as I can work out the 20 "frigoyers" that is the 9 destroyers and 11 fast frigates were to consist of:
4 Daring class
2 Battle class 1944
3 Tribal class modernised as anti-submarine destroyers
6 Type 12 frigates
5 Type 15 frigates by converting the RAN's 5 Q class destroyers​

In the event what the Royal Australian Navy received was:
3 Daring class (Waterhen was cancelled)
2 Battle class 1944
2 Tribal class modernised as anti-submarine destroyers (Bataan wasn't modernised)
4 Type 12 frigates (the 1950-plan for 6 ships was reduced to 4)
4 Type 15 frigates (Quality wasn't converted)​

That was a total of 15 ships, rather than 20.

What I'd like to see is something along the lines of:
3 Tribal class destroyers built in Australia in World War II and converted to A/S destroyers in the 1950s
5 Q class destroyers built in the UK in World War II and converted to Type 15 frigates in the 1950s
2 Battle class 1944 built in Australia in the second half of the 1940s
4 Daring class built in Australia in the first half of the 1950s
6 Type 12 built in Australia in the second half of the 1950s.
That gives the RAN 20 modern "frigoyers" in 1960 made up of 12 new ships and 8 modernised ships.

The 3 Tribals and 5 Type 15s would be replaced one-to-one in the 1960s by a mix of additional Type 12 frigates and Australian built Adams class DDGs. Then in the 1970s the Battles, Darings and first 6 Type 12s would be replaced by 12 Light Destroyers.

Therefore, in the period 1960-1980 new ships would be being built at an average rate of one per year, with the Cockatoo and Willamstown shipyards laying down ships at the rate of one each every other year. These shipyards might be competitive enough to outbid the British yards that built the RNZNs 2 Rothesay and 2 Leander class frigates IOTL.
 
You are probably thinking of the 8 RN Leander class which in the 1970s had their 4.5" turret replaced by Ikara, while retaining the facilities for the Wasp helicopter and the single Limbo aft.

However, I will nit pick, by stating that I don't want both. I want the 4.5" turret and a helicopter or the 4.5" turret and Ikara.

That must have been what I was thinking of, yes. But I can't see why you would willingly give up a helicopter capability - they're useful for lots of things, not just dropping the odd torp. That's only going to become more and more the case as time goes by. So what's your reasoning here?
 
That must have been what I was thinking of, yes. But I can't see why you would willingly give up a helicopter capability - they're useful for lots of things, not just dropping the odd torp. That's only going to become more and more the case as time goes by. So what's your reasoning here?
I'm not giving up a helicopter capability, I'm acquiring one.
 
In the River class DEs the Ikara was mounted at the back is a cut out 'pocket', taking up the space of the flight deck in other Leanders.


4815267489_f899ae6d7f_b.jpg

The reason Ikara was developed was because it was an all-weather system whereas the MATCH manned and DASH drone helicopters were most certainly not.
 
Last edited:
I'd go for 16 in 1970 as follows:
4 Adams class DDG - 4th ship ordered 1963
4 Daring class DD - Waterhen not cancelled 1954
6 Type 12 FF ordered 1950 - The fifth and sixth ships weren't cancelled in 1956
2 Type 12 FF ordered 1964 - to replace Anzac and Tobruk​

However, the first 6 Type 12 would be built as Rothesay class and rebuilt along the same lines as the British Rothesays were, i.e. they would be fitted with facilities for one Wasp helicopter instead of Ikara. The last 2 would be built as broad-beamed Leanders, so again facilities for one Wasp helicopter instead of Ikara, but they would retain the electronics of the OTL ships.

As I'm assuming that money was no object the Daring class would have a major refit in the 1960s which would include having Tatar or Standard MR installed.

That would be nice, but in an era of full employment the RN would struggle to man them.

The reason I'd like to keep the escort force only a bit larger than OTL is to have a balanced navy with carrier aviation, submarines and amphibious ships.
 
Top