Australian Submarines - challenge

[Pangur]

I would still say that destroyers are far more likely than submarines, when you consider that Australia would be doctrinally similar to the United Kingdom, which traditionally shunned submarine warfare. A did Scullin wanted employment, would major public works make more sense?

And I'm pretty sure that the naval agreements specified combined UK/Dominion naval forces, IIRC.

One reason might be to trow the conservative side of Aussie politics a bone. That make me think about that aborted TL of mine - have a senator that was either independent to begin with or he gets to go independent on the basis of Naval spend and really push my luck the guy is a big push up for subs

 

[phx1138]

It occurs to me subs might be an attractive lower-cost option to a battleship, if you accept the notion of subs for coast defense (discredited as it proved in the event).

 

[sparky42]

It occurs to me subs might be an attractive lower-cost option to a battleship, if you accept the notion of subs for coast defense (discredited as it proved in the event).

They aren't really prestige ships though, not on the scale of even Cruisers, wouldn't that go against them?

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Hmmm for me it would also rest on how large we intend to make any proposed submarine flotilla?

Additionally what is their role within the RAN. If we are intending these submarines to be used in a maritime interdicition role, than long range cruisers may be more effective in the 20's.

However if due to the WNT we end up with decreased tonnage rates and still require a merchant interdicition capability and we opt for submarines than we will end up with a long range submarine. Would the RAN consider buying from the USN in this scenario or alternativley perhaps develop a submarine capability with the RCN?

 

[phx1138]

Hmmm for me it would also rest on how large we intend to make any proposed submarine flotilla?

An excellent point.

Additionally what is their role within the RAN. If we are intending these submarines to be used in a maritime interdicition role, than long range cruisers may be more effective in the 20's.

As I noted, I'd propose coast defense, since commerce raiding would seem to want a doctrine change.

Would the RAN consider buying from the USN

Conceivable, given the USN has probably the best boats for the Pacific (tho not in the '20s...): recall, this is the era of the S-boats & the monster V-boats, which were expensive white elephants; it would be 1935 before Dolphin, & even she had her weaknesses. OTOH, presupposing RAN operates mainly in & around DEI/SWPA, a "dressed up" Sugar boat wouldn't be a dead letter. (Air conditioning would be a must.)

That said, I consider it much more likely RAN buys from Britain, all considered, not least getting a better deal on payment schedule & restrictions on exports & such. So, something akin to the Walrus- (?) or T-class?

perhaps develop a submarine capability with the RCN?

No chance, IMO. RCN could barely crew DDs by 1940, let alone subs in the '20s. Unless I'm very mistaken (& I may be...).

They aren't really prestige ships though, not on the scale of even Cruisers, wouldn't that go against them?

It would indeed. However, given the OP, maybe good sense trumps the desire for prestige? (Yes, I know how unlikely that is.)

 

[Riain]

If you're willing to accept some gaps where boat availability can't meet demand then I think it may be possible. For example there were no boats available between the loss of AE2 in 1915 and the arrival of the first J class boat in 1919, but the RAN was not idle during this timeframe, allocating money towards a sub and sending a team to Britain.

In particular submarine J7 stays in commission between 1922 and 1927 and the O class are not returned to Britain in 1931 for whatever reason. If still in Australia by 1937 or so I think the O class boats would be reactivated, and may be the only Commonwealth subs in the Pacific in 1941. The war may see the RAN lose both it's subs, but by late in the war another may be available, at least a T class and maybe an A class.

When these wartime subs need replacing I'd suggest the US Barbel class rather than the Oberons.

 

[Captain Jack]

No chance, IMO. RCN could barely crew DDs by 1940, let alone subs in the '20s. Unless I'm very mistaken (& I may be...).

Nope, you are correct. In 1939 the RCN had six River-class destroyers, five minesweepers, and two training ships. And that was an improvement over the '20s because Canada had undergone a modest rebuilding over the '30s. No chance they go in for a submarine project in the '20s.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

The other point to consider is the fleet turnover rate, i.e. with the rate of technological advance considering new submarines once every ten years seems fair.

Another consideration would be doctrine development, although coastal defence may be our reason for the existence of the submarine fleet. Operating from Darwin, Fremantle or Sydney Harbour is different than Scape Flow. So how we adapt RN doctrine to the RAN will be very interesting. Perhaps we can have Admiral Horton seconded to do so...

Although more expensive, this approach may find credence during the depression. Additionally, Australia could opt to produce the submarines domestically. However the only way that would work would be with a continuous build model, which would raise the cost per unit, but enable the workforce to remain employed.

 

[Pangur]

If you're willing to accept some gaps where boat availability can't meet demand then I think it may be possible. For example there were no boats available between the loss of AE2 in 1915 and the arrival of the first J class boat in 1919, but the RAN was not idle during this timeframe, allocating money towards a sub and sending a team to Britain.

In particular submarine J7 stays in commission between 1922 and 1927 and the O class are not returned to Britain in 1931 for whatever reason. If still in Australia by 1937 or so I think the O class boats would be reactivated, and may be the only Commonwealth subs in the Pacific in 1941. The war may see the RAN lose both it's subs, but by late in the war another may be available, at least a T class and maybe an A class.

When these wartime subs need replacing I'd suggest the US Barbel class rather than the Oberons.

I would be more than willing to accept gaps as you suggest. One quibble however is that late in the war I would have expected a larger fleet, not 1 or 2 more like 6 as the value of subs where well proven .

Going for US builds as against Oberons is a twist worth thinking about -how well did they stack up against each other seeing as the Oberons had a reputation of being VERY quiet

 

[La Rouge Beret]

Beautiful well balanced submarines that formed the basis of the RNLN Walrus class. They are also larger which provides greater opportunties for longer patrol times.

Honestly the Barbels would have had the edge platform wise, but Perisher graduates are exceptional.

On a personal notes one of my former bosses was the only man to have three submarine drives within the RAN. We always speculated one of the reasons he was successful was due to his German heritage...

As to WW II if we had a smaller submarine fleet at the start of around 3 submarines, as the war progressed and expanded to the Pacific. It would make sense that it would be expanded to perhaps 6 or more boats. After all if the RAN had been operating submarines for approximatly thirty years there is a large pool of trade knowledge and skilled personnel to build on. Perhaps we can even see the introduction of one of the USN targeting computers into a RAN submarine as a start or alternatively we operate an Australian version of the Sugar class.

 

[Riain]

It's not the value of subs that's the problem, rather the availability of large Pacific ocean subs of the T class as well as a lack of a large cadre of submariners to build upon.

The British were notoriously niggardly with sending the good gear away from home, the first Spitfires didn't leave Britain until mid 1942, 2 years after the BoB. The RN will make sure all of their European commitments are met with good subs before sparing us any.

With only 2 boats in use before the war we won't have the junior officers and junior NCOs to promote into the higher ranks for a 6 boat fleet, especially if we lose a boat or two before new ones become available.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

It's not the value of subs that's the problem, rather the availability of large Pacific ocean subs of the T class as well as a lack of a large cadre of submariners to build upon.

The British were notoriously niggardly with sending the good gear away from home, the first Spitfires didn't leave Britain until mid 1942, 2 years after the BoB. The RN will make sure all of their European commitments are met with good subs before sparing us any.

With only 2 boats in use before the war we won't have the junior officers and junior NCOs to promote into the higher ranks for a 6 boat fleet, especially if we lose a boat or two before new ones become available.

Exactly right and a good identification of potential bottlenecks that may prevent further expansion. So we either need domestic submarine building capability that I think would be difficult with the economic conditions of the time noting our very small requirement for submarines.

So if not the RN, then it leaves us with a sole alternative being the USN. Would the US be more receptive and does the Australian government have the cash available? Alternatively left field what about the Dutch Navy to the near North?

A POD I have thought of would be a RAN S class is used to transport Dugout Doug to safety...

 

[Pangur]

Fair enough

OK, then post ww2 would it not have been possible to pick up surplus subs and make an offer to ex RN crews to come to Australia to fill out the ranks?

 

[TFSmith121]

MDAP under ANZUS?

MDAP under ANZUS?

The US transferred nine Gatos to various allied nations, from the mid-1950s onward, including Japan. The Japanese boat, Kuroshio ex-USS Mingo, was transferred specifically for duty as an ASW training boat.

56 Gatos were still operational after VJ Day, but were supplanted in USN service by the Balao and Tench class boats; presumably, even with the historical nine transfers, another 2-3 Gatos could have been provided to the RAN - essentially for free - for the same ASW/training role the RN boats (Ts or As, I think) provided to the RAN and RNZN in the same period.

When the RAN has enough qualified submariners, they could transition to an operational force with modern boats; interesting enough, the Barbel class design was in production in 1956-59, at three different yards - presumably another three or even another six could have been procured, as a mix of Australian and US MDAP funding, and at a competitive price to the Oberons. There's also the possibility of a joint procurement with the Canadians and/or Dutch in this era, or possibly Japan. NZ may be willing to provide some funding, as well, for training needs, at least.

That also positions the RAN for at least considering a SSN at some point in the 1970s...maybe the Sturgeon design?

Best,

 

[Riain]

Yes, easily I'd guess given that we'd have years of peace to build up a cadre of crew. That's pretty much the whole point, building up a fleet is a peacetime thing, you can't improvise one during wartime.

 

[La Rouge Beret]

OK, then post ww2 would it not have been possible to pick up surplus subs and make an offer to ex RN crews to come to Australia to fill out the ranks?

As in what we are doing now?

Of course it is a possibility, but to do that to want to expand the submarine arm would require a greater contribution during WW II. So it is ensuring that the submarines that are used by the RAN have a bigger impact.

In 1942 and 1943 the RAN suffers some very heavy losses with regard to heavy capital units, during this time the submarine arm is seen as the guiding light and achieves some notable success against the IJN. That would be enough to see greater development post war.

 

[phx1138]

Nope, you are correct. In 1939 the RCN had six River-class destroyers, five minesweepers, and two training ships. And that was an improvement over the '20s because Canada had undergone a modest rebuilding over the '30s. No chance they go in for a submarine project in the '20s.

Thx. The confusion was due to the building of the H-class (IIRC) in around 1917, in Montreal. (These were supposed to go to Russia, but didn't.)

It's not the value of subs that's the problem, rather the availability of large Pacific ocean subs of the T class as well as a lack of a large cadre of submariners to build upon.

Looking at SWPA geography, I'm not sure that's an issue. Udw endurance would be more imporant, IMO, since they'd spent a lot of time under Japanese air en route.

As for quietness, the Oberons are pretty late (unless you're also counting well into postwar; I'm really not). Moreover, in the Pacific War, Japanese sonar wasn't great. (Not to say quiet pumps wouldn't be a good thing, but quieter running really wasn't a huge edge.)

As for the surviving Gatos, IMO some of them are probably past their service lifetime (numbers were retired for that reason). Many of the Gatos, Balaos, & Tenches were GUPPYfied (& FRAMed, too, IIRC), only to become obsolete in USN service after Nautilus. If RAN waits a bit, it could get nearly new GUPPY Tenches for a song.

 

[Gunnarnz]

One of the New Zealand Defence White Papers (I think it was either 1979 or 1983) proposed replacing the RNZN's combat elements - the frigates - with something like 6 diesel-electric submarines. The argument was that the manpower costs would be lower, and they would be more useful for the primarily ASW mission they were tasked to for ANZUS.
Personally I think it's a bloody stupid idea in strategic terms for NZ, and obviously nothing ever came of it, but it does mean that ITTL NZ might be in the market for subs around that timeframe. I suspect that the idea had been floating around (sorry) for some time beforehand, and I know that a proportion of RN submariners came to NZ after WW2. If it was mentioned to their counterpart in the RAN the Australians might be more enthusiastic about moving forward with submarine plans if they thought their neighbours would join in.

I know it's far too late for a pre-WW2 POD, but it might help post-war. Just my $0.02 worth.

 

[TFSmith121]

The thing about the Gatos is they would be "free"

The thing about the Gatos is they would be "free"and easy to justify in the "ASW target" role; operate them as such for a few years in the mid-50s, and train up the cadre for operational boats by the late '50s, which gets the RAN to the Barbels, some of the best non-nuclear boats of their day and with USN-level endurance, weps/sensors, and habitability.

The Oberons were good boats, but the Barbels, because of the Albacore type hull, were a step beyond. Cripes, the Dutch and Taiwanese were ordering what amounted to Barbels in the 1970s...

Actually, thinking about this, what would it require for the RAN and RNZN to go with all US designs after the mid-50s or so? The existing inventory are Australian-built destroyers (Tribals, Battles, Vampires) and frigates (Rivers); the RAN acquired nine modern escorts in the 1960s, and the RNZN needs four...

Along with the CF Adams class destroyers and modified Rothesays/Leanders that were acquired historically, another possibility would be:

Three DLG types for the RAN (a Leahy/Belknap equivalent);
Five DEG types for the RAN (a Brooke type looks useful);
Four DEG types for the RNZN (repeat Brookes; if they can't swing four DEGs, a mix of Brookes and Garcias with full hello capacity);
Six SS for the RAN (Barbels);

Twelve modern escorts and six modern D-E SS...absent Melbourne et al, and one less escort hull, presumably the RAN could manage the aquisition and operations costs; same for the RNZN with 1-for-1 for what they ran, historically.

Transitions into a force of Spruance/Perry-based hulls and (possibly) SSNs (for the RAN) in the 1970s-80s...

Best,

 

[Pangur]

The snag with SSN's is the N bit The idea if using Nuke boats has come up again in regards to a Collins class replacement. It makes perfect sense in someways - range for starters but falls down when it comes to two issues, support - Aussie simply does not have the infrastructure or the money to built said infrastructure (Out sourcing that is just not an option) The other issue is who will sell them?