AHC: Strong Post War Royal Australian Navy

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?

Yes to the first and they’d be replaced with the latest Harrier model.
 
When Melbourne rams the USS Frank E Evans she is more badly damaged than otl and it leaves the RAN without a carrier at the time Britain is withdrawing from East of Suez. As an emergency replacement while Melbourne is rebuilt it is decided to operate Sydney as an anti submarine carrier with helicopters and she is as quickly as possible refitted to allow this. In order to provide some measure self defence against air attack a squadron of the new British Harrier is bought by the RAN. When Melbourne re-enters service the RAN is able to keep a carrier constantly in service by alternating the two. As are wartime ships they need replacing and either two invincible class are ordered from Britain or two Sea Control ships from the US in the late 70's.
 
What about getting one of two SAIPAN class CVLs from the US in the early 1970s and equipping it with Harriers like the Spanish did with the DEDALO/USS CABOT that they managed to keep in service until 1989.

SAIPAN and WRIGHT missed WWII and then do not appear to have been heavy use ships and were even reserve status for part of their careers.
 
There's a small problem with that, the USN made a few minor modifications to them in the 60's. They could buy a couple of brand new Iwo Jima class LPH though.

USS_Arlington_AGMR-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm operating under the assumption they could be "re-modified" for the RAN to operate Harriers and helicopters.
 
Why bother, they'd end up with ships just as old as HMAS Sydney that are less capable than either Melbourne or Sydney and are more vulnerable to weather damage. If they're going to spend the money to replace their existing two ships it makes more sense to spend it on new ships and modified Iwo Jimas with Harriers and ASW helicopters would be a good fit for Australia's needs. Particularly with regards to manning requirements and use as troop transports.
 
When you get down to it the American Light Fleet Carriers were really just fast Escort Carriers where as the British CVLS were proper fleet carriers that got shrunk in the wash. (And still carried more aircraft than some of their bigger sisters)
 
If you want an aircraft carrier, you go for the Invincible class not the Iwo Jima.

The Iwo Jima is smaller, slower, has Steam Propulsion and a larger crew.
 
If you want an aircraft carrier, you go for the Invincible class not the Iwo Jima.

The Iwo Jima is smaller, slower, has Steam Propulsion and a larger crew.

Could not agree more.

If you can wait until the 1980's to receive it.

Read my post on how it could come about politically, but basically Australia could join the program that resulted in the Invincible Class, acquiring two new ships of the class from the early '80s.
 
And with a program of 5 ships they might be completed more quickly and at a slightly lower unit cost.

One question would be whether the Australian units get Sea Dart or if they get a Mk.13 launcher and SM-1.

I assume it would depend on the difference in capability between Sea Dart and SM-1 in this time period along with the cost aspect.

Then again, does a purchase of Invincible class in the early/mid 1970’s mean a possible purchase of the Type 42 or 22 (or derivative of) instead of FFG-7’s?
 
The invincible was investigated and found unsuitable, too expensive for the capability it provided.
 
And with a program of 5 ships they might be completed more quickly and at a slightly lower unit cost.

Exactly.

One question would be whether the Australian units get Sea Dart or if they get a Mk.13 launcher and SM-1.

I assume it would depend on the difference in capability between Sea Dart and SM-1 in this time period along with the cost aspect.

Then again, does a purchase of Invincible class in the early/mid 1970’s mean a possible purchase of the Type 42 or 22 (or derivative of) instead of FFG-7’s?

The Charles F Adams (Perth) class destroyers being in service means you already have the SM-1. So you would likely either want that to replace Sea Dart or you'd go without that capability on the Invincibles (a more sensible decision).

The invincible was investigated and found unsuitable, too expensive for the capability it provided.

Yes, but we're suggesting a change in circumstances and, subsequently, thinking. I posited an idea based around the 1963 election going differently and decisions flowing from that point.
 
Yes, but we're suggesting a change in circumstances and, subsequently, thinking. I posited an idea based around the 1963 election going differently and decisions flowing from that poin

Sure, but if we have a trajectory from the early 60s then we could probably do better than a couple of Invincibles in the 80s. Something capable of carrying more than 8 or so Harriers would be better.
 
The RN successfully argues to be allowed a Sea Harrier after the cancellation of the conventional carrier program and designs the Invincible class with this in mind, producing a ship of around 25,000 tons capable of carrying a full 12 plane squadron of Harriers, 8 Sea King ASW, 4 Sea King AEW and 2 plane guard/cod Wessex. Australia buys in from the start.
 
Sure, but if we have a trajectory from the early 60s then we could probably do better than a couple of Invincibles in the 80s. Something capable of carrying more than 8 or so Harriers would be better.

I was trying to come up with an alternative history delivering two carriers that could be somewhat realistic. The Invincibles are not ideal, but their primary focus of ASW provides a plausible rationale for Australian involvement. They're being built around the time when Australia needs a new carrier to replace the Melbourne, so I think it all kind of works. The replacement of the Invincibles, however, would be the opportune time for something a little different, and would come when we wanted to increase our amphibious capabilities.

The RN successfully argues to be allowed a Sea Harrier after the cancellation of the conventional carrier program and designs the Invincible class with this in mind, producing a ship of around 25,000 tons capable of carrying a full 12 plane squadron of Harriers, 8 Sea King ASW, 4 Sea King AEW and 2 plane guard/cod Wessex. Australia buys in from the start.

Right, but that's a different philosophy. More likely, if they could carry more aircraft then during the Cold War period it'd be additional ASW helicopters. Besides, what you're suggesting is not such an increase in aircraft anyway. Air groups post the refit that removed the Sea Dart typically included 12 helicopters and 7-9 Sea Harriers / Harriers. You're only gaining a half-a-dozen aircraft.
 
Oh, by the way, smaller air groups are far more plausible too since that’s where so much of the expense will be.

An RAN with two Invincibles in the mid ‘80s would obviously need a larger Fleet Air Arm than historically, but what would be a reasonably affordable inventory?

A modest standard air group might be four Sea Harriers and six Sea Kings - one or two of the latter being AEW variants.

You might work on the assumption that the RAN should be able to have available sufficient aircraft of each type for two such air groups and then enough for a third to effectively augment one of the air groups if needed.

Thus, working on the ratio I’ve heard of 3-1-1-1 for fighters (i.e. for every 3 a/c ready for operations, you need one in squadron maintenance, one in deep maintenance / attrition, and one for pilot conversion), you’d need at least 24 Sea Harriers, 20 single-seater and 4 two-seaters. But you might have a couple more of each.

Helicopters are a little different, but let’s say 30 Sea Kings, including 6-8 AEW variants, and probably across two squadrons rather than one.

So, yeah, even for the small Invincibles with modest air groups we’re looking at 50-plus more aircraft than were in service historically.

And then in the future you’re going to have to replace all of those aircraft before the ships themselves are due for the scrappers.

Though, on the fighter front, Australia could save a dollar or two in buying ex-British Harrier IIs.
 
Was the RAN not having any major combatants capable of supporting helicopter operations (until the Adelaide’s) aimed at emphasising the importance of the carrier capability?

Was it because they couldn’t afford additional platforms to operate off them because all the resources went into the carriers?

Or was it because operations off platforms of that size were significantly constrained by weather due to the technology of the day?

Just curious because I find it interesting that it took until the 1980’s for the RAN to purchase a frigate/destroyer that could operate helicopters. (Of course they then waited until 1989 to get SeaHawks into service....)
 
was trying to come up with an alternative history delivering two carriers that could be somewhat realistic. The Invincibles are not ideal, but their primary focus of ASW provides a plausible rationale for Australian involvement. They're being built around the time when Australia needs a new carrier to replace the Melbourne, so I think it all kind of works. The replacement of the Invincibles, however, would be the opportune time for something a little different, and would come when we wanted to increase our amphibious capabilities.

If your trajectory starts back in the 60s then you don't have to be scraping in the 80s, mainly because you have 2 major events that prove the value of the carrier/ASW/amphibious ship: Vietnam and Timor. Vietnam in particular is an opportunity because the Melbourne escorted operation Hardihood which established 1 ATF and the US asked for her in 1966 and 67. Once she has been used in war its hard to argue that the RAN doesn't need a carrier, and if you have 1 then the second as a training/reserve/ASW/amphibious ship.
 
Top