AHC: Strong Post War Royal Australian Navy

That would be nice, but in an era of full employment the RN would struggle to man them.
With great reluctance, I must agree.

AFAIK a failure to reach recruiting targets was why Waterhen and the fifth and sixth Type 12s were cancelled in the middle 1950s, rather than a lack of money to build and operate them.

AFAIK a shortage of people rather than a shortage of money was also why the planned refit of Sydney to the same standard as Melbourne was cancelled. AFAIK a shortage of people rather than a shortage of money is also why the planned rebuild of Bataan to an A/S destroyer and the planned conversion of Quality to a Type 15 frigate were not carried out.
 
It's why conscription for the regular army, as opposed to the CMF as was traditional, was introduced in 1964.
 
Now if only they could have copied New Zealand and borrowed some RN sailors.... it wasn’t until the 1970’s that the RN had its own Manning issues wasn’t it?

And once they are serving in RAN ships, let the poaching commence! Important ADF tradition.
 
Now if only they could have copied New Zealand and borrowed some RN sailors.... it wasn’t until the 1970’s that the RN had its own Manning issues wasn’t it?

And once they are serving in RAN ships, let the poaching commence! Important ADF tradition.

I don't think that is an option in the 60s because the RAN and RN were virtually interchangeable anyway. The main RAN commitment was the FESR with a couple of escorts on station and the Melbourne on regular rotation, and the RN stationed a submarine flotilla in Sydney until 1969. It was this reason that when the Voyager was sunk the RN transferred the HMS Duchess to the RAN within weeks.

Once we get to the 70s I think we were suffering from war burnout, with no threats and no allies manning problems were simply accepted as standard.
 
This is from the Year Book of Australia 1946-47 and should explain itself.

Ships of the Royal Australian Navy, October, 1947.png
 
This is also from the Year Book of Australia. However, it is the RAN's personnel statistics for 31st December, 1947, rather than October 1947, which was the date for Posts 25 and 26.

RAN Personnel 1946-47.png
 
This should also explain itself. The source is also the Year Book of Australia.

Unfortunately the year books for the period 1946-52 don't present the information in the same way and the statistics for several years are missing.

ADF Personnel 1953-84 from the Year Book of Australia.png
 
The only condition is that the RAN must have 2 carriers available similar to how the Marine Nationale had the Foch and Clemenceau.
In this thread the UK builds a quartet of 35,000 ton carriers in the 1950s which were bigger and better versions of the rebuilt Victorious. One of them becomes surplus to requirements as a result of the East of Suez withdrawal and is sold to Australia to replace Melbourne.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/argus-class-aircraft-carrier-hms-glorious.414501/
 

Zen9

Banned
However had the RN focused on a next generation Colossus/Majestic sized carriers, such would be both available to the RAN and within their personnel limits.
 
You know, looking at these more powerful RAN timelines makes me realize one thing, just one thing that I feel I'm probably overlooking here...

...to what reason why Australia chose not to pursue carrier aviation after this point? Was it because of budgetry concerns, the lack of need because big brother America?
 
You know, looking at these more powerful RAN timelines makes me realize one thing, just one thing that I feel I'm probably overlooking here...

...to what reason why Australia chose not to pursue carrier aviation after this point? Was it because of budgetry concerns, the lack of need because big brother America?

In 1980 the plan was for Melbourne to run to about 1984, while a replacement 2as procured. In 1981 the HMS Invincible was offered to Australia at a knockdown price, despite the class being rejected as an option for new building replacement. A planned $10 million refit on Melbourne was cancelled to provide some money.

Before the transfer could happen the Falklands occurred and in their wake the governments decided that the British could keep the vince and organise something else for Australia. By this time Melbourne had not been to sea for a 18 months and needed a lengthy $10 million refit before it could again.

In 1983 the incoming Hawke government cancelled the carrier replacement project in light of these factors. In 1986 the Dibb report on the Defence of Australia stated that the RAN didn't need a carrier to defend the air-sea gap to the north.
 
Hermes is a modified WWII design, a successor design would have more advanced technology and possibly reduced manning needs.
Although I think @Riain is being too pessimistic about Australia's ability to recruit the necessary people he does have a point.

The 35,000 ton aircraft carrier I was proposing would have a larger crew than Hermes.

IIRC Hermes had a crew of 2,100 when operating as a strike carrier (1959-71). The 35,000 ton ship I had in that thread was based on the 35,000 ton carrier proposed between the demise of the 1952 Carrier and the CVA.01 project. One of the few details available for that ship is its projected crew of 2,400.
 
The only condition is that the RAN must have 2 carriers available similar to how the Marine Nationale had the Foch and Clemenceau.
As the POD contains no restrictions on how the strong post-war RAN is achieved are there any plausible ways to accelerate Australia's population growth between 1900 and 1945 so that the country has double its OTL population from 1945 onwards?

That would allow Australia to recruit twice as many people for the RAN and the other branches of the ADF.

The only other ways are:
  1. Reducing the other branches of the ADF to provide the necessary money and people;
  2. The Australian Government increases the percentage of GNP spent on defence. In Post 31 I was trying to show that the British armed forces had about 25% more personnel than Australia in 1991 as a percentage of the population. However, the percentage of GNP that the UK spent on defence was 50% more than Australia's (4.3% v 2.7%).
 
Last edited:
One possibility is reducing the government obsession with infantry battalions.

The Government introduced conscription in 1964 to expand the army for CoIn operations, while not deploying tanks, armoured cars, medium artillery, fighters, aircraft carriers, patrol boats or MP/ASW aircraft that our alliance partners did deploy. I think we could find the men for the Hermes if we thought deploying a 2nd escort and patrol boats, tanks, armoured cars, 5.5" guns, Orions, Mirages was a better idea than sending a 3rd infantry battalion that we did not have.
 
I find it despairing that no one discussed how could a 2 carrier RAN be justified politically in an realistic manner.

Politics is an essential component of all grand strategy level planning.

Why would RAN need 2 carriers when US naval hegemony, long distance from cold war hotspots and the lacklustre Indonesia navy means typhoons are probably the primary threat to the security of Australia SLOCs?
 
Top