AHC: Strong Post War Royal Australian Navy

Australia makes a big push to increase its population by encouraging immigration from mainland Europe as well as Britain between the wars in response to the increasing Japanese threat. This would involve becoming industrially self sufficient and could be paid for by exploiting the country's vast mineral resources. Basically bring forward the programmes of the 1950's and 60's a generation early.
 
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.

So politics killed the carrier replacement idea. Okay gotcha.

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?

Depends, why does the RAN have two helicopter carriers now?
 
Because they are fashionable. Seriously every one seems to be buying them.

More seriously they offer a combined arms peace keepery humanitarian capability which is really handy in a Indo-Pacific full of disaster prone islands. God knows what they would do in a real war. But that is when the F35s and Collins step up to control deny the seaways.
 
Perhaps so in that regard. (And I do agree with you, what with Egypt, ROK and Turkey procuring them nowadays).

Yeah, Australia could definitely pull a Japan and buy F-35Bs if they really wanna convert the Canberra-class from Helo Carriers to STOVL carriers. Doubt you're going to get anymore powerful than that.
 
We established on the 'Better post war RN' thread that an earlier introduction of Gas Turbines not only reduces crewing by about 10% but due to the reduced need / time of refits fewere overall ships are needed as each GT powered vessels spends less time in refit.

So on the back of an earlier introduction of Marine Gas Turbines for the Royal Navy and USN we might see the crewing numbers burden reduced across teh fleet allowing for extra hulls and even specialised hulls?
 
So politics killed the carrier replacement idea. Okay gotcha.



Depends, why does the RAN have two helicopter carriers now?

Humanitarian missiom in SEA, improved economy leading to a better Indonesia navy and the most important reason: Much serious threats from PLAN and Indian Navy.
 
Perhaps so in that regard. (And I do agree with you, what with Egypt, ROK and Turkey procuring them nowadays).

Yeah, Australia could definitely pull a Japan and buy F-35Bs if they really wanna convert the Canberra-class from Helo Carriers to STOVL carriers. Doubt you're going to get anymore powerful than that.

Egypt and Turkey have had aspirations to be a regional power for a long time, esp. When both have strong potential enemies and irrendist claims. Do not forget Turkey and Greecec are the only 2 NATO members that thought against another NATO member.

ROK's had been developing a blue water navy to counter the 2 leading navies in the region, JMSDF and PLAN. Do not forget there are territorial disputes between ROK and Japan and fishery rights disputes between ROK, Japan and PRC.

The issue of SLOC security and overlapping claims of EEZ are all potential hotspot issues in East China Sea and Sea of Japan.
 
Humanitarian missiom in SEA, improved economy leading to a better Indonesia navy and the most important reason: Much serious threats from PLAN and Indian Navy.

Well they were a pretty logical replacement for Kanimbla and Manoora really. They give an amphibious and humanitarian capacity that the RAN has lacked, while being big enough to hold a full command staff and (if required) lots of helicopters.

The problem (IMO) is that the RAN needs to purchase additional MRH-90 and SH-60R to fully utilise the ships.
 
Yeah, Australia could definitely pull a Japan and buy F-35Bs if they really wanna convert the Canberra-class from Helo Carriers to STOVL carriers. Doubt you're going to get anymore powerful than that.

Just to clarify, I don't see the Canberras getting F35s. The F35s will be land based like the F18s and F111s before them.

With carriers go big or go home. LHD type flat tops are more of a Swiss Army Ship. Not for power projection.
 
So politics killed the carrier replacement idea. Okay gotcha.

Depends, why does the RAN have two helicopter carriers now?

Of course, politics approves or cancels every carrier ever proposed. Although it sucks when events push governments into decision points like this one.

We need the LHDs for limited, medium intensity conflicts in the region, East Timor 1999 is the most appropriate example. Humanitarian missions are secondary justifications.
 
Just to clarify, I don't see the Canberras getting F35s. The F35s will be land based like the F18s and F111s before them.

With carriers go big or go home. LHD type flat tops are more of a Swiss Army Ship. Not for power projection.

It has been discussed, as an adjunct to the land based F35 fleet. 4 land based squadrons and a ship based squadron equates to a pretty hefty force in a regional context.
 
Just to clarify, I don't see the Canberras getting F35s. The F35s will be land based like the F18s and F111s before them.

With carriers go big or go home. LHD type flat tops are more of a Swiss Army Ship. Not for power projection.
The Falkland Islanders would beg to differ.
 
Australia makes a big push to increase its population by encouraging immigration from mainland Europe as well as Britain between the wars in response to the increasing Japanese threat. This would involve becoming industrially self sufficient and could be paid for by exploiting the country's vast mineral resources. Basically bring forward the programmes of the 1950's and 60's a generation early.

You just made the 1930s and labour politics very interesting. Given the racism and class conflicts around Italian and Greek migrants *prior* the 1940s, "Wogs out of work" could make for very interesting Labor governments in the 1940s, and potentially governments to the left of Labor in the 1940s. Kinda defeats the purpose of the thread if the RAN and HMASs are replaced by the RAF and RAS respectively.

Also Lang tried the industrial self-sufficiency thing in the 1930s and the Banks had the UK knock him out. Over production was a thing.

Sam.
 
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?

It was justified politically from 1949 to 1956, the decision not to refit Sydney was made at about the time defence policy and strategy was changing from basically fighting ww2 again to limited wars using extant rather than mobilised forces. During these years the ww3 role of the 2 carriers was to be trade protectionas part of the RNs global forces.

From the late 50s Australia's defence policy and strategy was forward defense, with an infantry battalion, combat aircraft wing and a couple of escorts permanently stationed in Malaysia as part of the Far East Strategic Reserve. In this context the RAN carrier regularly spent time in the FESR AO, again as part of the RN carrier forces. In addition she escorted the Sydney to Vietnam on 3 of the first 4 trips and was requested as as an ASW carrier on Yankee station by the US in 1966 and again in 1967, so the carrier is pretty easy to justify in this era. As for the Sydney, her trooping runs to Vietnam were escorted by 2 ships in the early years but later carried 4 ASW Wessex, so it is easy to justify a second flattop for asw and amphibious work.
 

Zen9

Banned
We established on the 'Better post war RN' thread that an earlier introduction of Gas Turbines not only reduces crewing by about 10% but due to the reduced need / time of refits fewere overall ships are needed as each GT powered vessels spends less time in refit.

So on the back of an earlier introduction of Marine Gas Turbines for the Royal Navy and USN we might see the crewing numbers burden reduced across teh fleet allowing for extra hulls and even specialised hulls?

We might also consider that the swept wing Sea Hawk developments (that ultimately lead to the Hunter) and navalised Swift could become available, especially if the pause in UK development of fighters is not taken.

For the Colossus/Majestic type CV, there is also the Super Vampire, and the later Saro F.177.

But it's also possible a common hull frigate would emerge earlier.

Similarly with SAM systems. There's the possibility of retrofitting Brakemine GAP (SAM).
 
We might also consider that the swept wing Sea Hawk developments (that ultimately lead to the Hunter) and navalised Swift could become available, especially if the pause in UK development of fighters is not taken.

For the Colossus/Majestic type CV, there is also the Super Vampire, and the later Saro F.177.

But it's also possible a common hull frigate would emerge earlier.

Similarly with SAM systems. There's the possibility of retrofitting Brakemine GAP (SAM).
The British FAA did order some Swifts with hooks, which IIRC it planned to use for familiarisation trials of swept-wing aircraft. However, the order was cancelled as part of the 1954 Defence Review.

I've always thought of the Venom as the Super Vampire and IIRC the RAN bought 40 Sea Venoms IOTL.
 
Politics . . .

You're absolutely right. The answer is in the politics of the past, and somewhat the economics, which, of course, is related.

I would suggest to achieve a change warranting a stronger RAN you would need to start with Australia's move away from Britain and towards the US. That takes you back to the decision to allow US bases in Australia and, especially, participation in the Vietnam War, and then Britain's withdrawal from east of Suez.

So, how about we go to the 1963 election, where the incumbent Menzies government won an increased majority against Arthur Calwell's Labor opposition due, largely, to some own goals on the part of the latter. If the result goes the other way and Calwell wins, then we likely won't see Australian participation in Vietnam - or at least a much reduced level of participation. Subsequently there would be no need for the introduction of national service.

Now, as for the RAN, we could see a range of different decisions that could lead to where we want to go. HMAS Sydney could be paid off given she wouldn't be needed as a fast troop transport. That saves money. Until the decision was reversed in 1963, the Menzies government had decided to convert HMAS Melbourne to an ASW carrier with Wessex helicopters and no fixed-wing aircraft. The hypothetical Calwell government may decide to go ahead with that plan.

I can hear people reading this and thinking you've just gone two steps backwards, which is true, but maybe that was what was needed. In the same era, the mid-'60s, you have the Royal Navy fighting for its next major ships, with the "through-deck cruiser" being developed, and you have the predecessor to the Harrier making an appearance. So maybe the Royal Australian Navy has a similar philosophy, seeing submarines as its greatest threat, and takes a keen interest in what's happening in the Mother Country.

By the mid-'70s, irrespective of which party is in government, it is conceivable - particularly with the UK's withdrawal from east of Suez and the outcome of the Vietnam War, but maybe added with some hypothetical increase in Soviet naval activity in the region (maybe another South-East Asian nation buddies up with the USSR) - that Australia decides to order a ship of the Invincible Class and some Sea Harriers to increase the ASW capability provided by HMAS Melbourne. Then, a mere few years later, well before that ship is even delivered, the government decides it might as well get a second to replace the ageing carrier.

There would, of course, be a whole range of other decisions that would go differently. The Perth Class destroyers were all ordered before the 1963 election so nothing changes there. But the Adelaide Class (Oliver Hazard Perry) frigates might be butterflied away. Perhaps four Leander Class frigates are ordered instead - converted during construction or shortly after perhaps for Sea Wolf. Aside from the Navy, it is interesting that Calwell went into that 1963 election promising an earlier replacement for the Canberra, which likely means the F-111 doesn't see Australian service and you have either the Phantom or the Vigilante instead, and maybe, if the former, an improved AAR capability.

Back to the RAN, I could see a 1985 surface fleet being: 2 x Invincible Class carriers, 3 x Perth Class destroyers, 4 x Leander Class frigates, 6 x River Class destroyer escorts.

The carriers won't need replacing till 2010-2015 or so, and no doubt there'd be immense debate surrounding such a capability. Perhaps the new ships - if they are acquired - would have a greater emphasis on a secondary role of amphibious operations, so a modified version of the two Canberra LHDs we've ended up with, but perhaps too the Sea Harriers might have been replaced by Harrier IIs and a commitment made to acquiring F-35Bs too.
 

Zen9

Banned
The British FAA did order some Swifts with hooks, which IIRC it planned to use for familiarisation trials of swept-wing aircraft. However, the order was cancelled as part of the 1954 Defence Review.

I've always thought of the Venom as the Super Vampire and IIRC the RAN bought 40 Sea Venoms IOTL.
Well if I had a perfect memory, I wouldn't be here, but living the life of Riley after making my third millions.

But now I have my books in front of me.... the precise designation was DH.116 of 1952. Ideal for fitting on a Colossus sized CV.

You are right that yes, Sea Swift was a temporary measure to get swept wing reheated jet fighters for trials. But it's an interesting 'What IF', considering it had better legs than the Hunter and was a stronger airframe.
And really the Type 545 Crescent Winged Swift (almost a completely new aircraft) was one of those rather interesting planes that nearly flew.

And if we're really on the speculative horse here......I really do wonder why there is no sign of a supersonic Skyhawk, I've read of all sorts of variants but never the that. Even though it's quite reasonable a development of the design.
 
So if Sea Harrier is purchased in the 1970's, are they upgraded to FA2 in the 1990's with additional units to replace attrition? Alternatively is a version of GR.5 or AV-8B+ with a radar produced earlier?
 
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?

Despite ANZUS and SEATO until 1967 the USN and RAN did not operate together for collective security, and in particular in 1962 during the Indonesian invasion of West Papua the US did not support Australia diplomatically. Further in 1969 Nixon announced the Guam Doctrine where US allies should not expect US support and would have to provide for their own defence, which is more than fair especially if Australia is a partner.

Australia was very close to a number of Cold War hotspots and an activate participant in the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Confrontation, the second Malaysian insurgency, the Vietnam War, communist insurrection in Thailand. HMAS Melbourne did a cruise in the indian Ocean in 1980, specifically in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

During the period of Soviet cooperation with Indonesia the TNI navy went from virtually nothing in 1960 to have a Sverdlov cruiser, destroyers and 12 whiskey submarines as well as Tu16s with AShMs. In any case Indonesia isn't the only game in town, nor is meekly protecting SLOCs the appropriate role of a blue water navy, rather it should be the facilitator of strategic reach in the region.
 
Top