The Kidds were possibly available twice, in 1979 when the contracts were cancelled due to the Iranian revolution and again in the late 90s with the post Cold War decline of the USN. In 79 we were well along with the FFG programme and in the late 90s we were well along with the ANZACs. The timing doesn't work unless major changes of plan are made at short notice for ships not specifically designed for Australian conditions.
Enhanced ADF
- Thread starter La Rouge Beret
- Start date
La Rouge Beret
Donor
My understanding is that the Kidds would have replaced the Perth class DDGs in service, I think the late 90s TL is the best bet for them. Alternatively, with greater Soviet deployments to the Indian ocean in the late 1970s and early 1980s would require the RAN to opportunistically acquire the Kidds to offset the evolved threat posed by the greater Soviet presence, but would mean retiring relatively young vessels. An interesting WI in my opinion.
This is a very good question. I'd forgot about the DDL. Looking at the program, three were actually ordered by the McMahon Government in '72, and then cancelled by the Whitlam Government. (Whitlam did a lot of cancelling didn't he?) So if we assume that the POD makes the cost of the ships much less of a concern - and we have a more bipartisan approach to defence projects - then we could butterfly away Labor's opposition to the program, which pre-dated their election. That would mean you have three Australian-built destroyers entering service by the mid '80s instead of the FFGs. They were not light, by the way, but more general purpose destroyers, with a 5-inch gun, the Tartar/Standard missile launcher, and landing pad and hangars for two helicopters. Much better than the Oliver Hazard Perrys!
The butterflies don't end there. Suddenly you have a domestic warship building program and you're going to want to keep it going. You can follow the first three destroyers with another three to replace the Perth (Charles F Adams) Class destroyers early. Then you could move into constructing a new class of six-eight frigates to replace the River Class DDEs - basically an earlier Anzac Class program. By the time you're done there, and maybe built a couple for New Zealand too along with perhaps an AOR or LPD or two, it might be time to start building the first of a new class to replace those "DDLs" - around the mid noughties - and ironically the design could end up looking a lot like our new Hobart Class - just a decade early!
Riain is right - it's all about the timing. From the Australian perspective, the Kidds only make sense as a bargain-basement buy when - or close to when - they were looking to buy new ships anyway. But given you'd likely end up with a domestic warship building industry earlier, it wouldn't make a lot of political sense to take advantage of such an offer, and also one would expect with the changes posited in this thread - much more funding and more certainty of funding, plus strong bipartisan support - you would have programs in place to ensure the timely replacement of ships.
Another thing he cancelled were the land and sea contributions to ANZUK.
ITTL would they be maintained into the 1980s? And even expanded with Australian units taking the place of British formations which were withdrawn as part of the 1974 Defence Review?
By the late 70s we were almost there: 1st Armoured tanks, 2nd Cavalry reconnaissance, 5/7 RAR Mech Infantry being the main units with 3 and 4 Cavalry APCs available to bulk it out by carrying up to 3 more RAR battalions if needed.
SP artillery is the only major missing piece of the puzzle, with the 14 Yeramba in 1952-57 and 6 M108s we borrowed in 1967 in lieu of tanks being the only time we have operated SP artillery.
M109's were fairly common in that time frame. I believe Canada, the UK and of course the U.S. had them so perhaps an intial cadre of troops could have gotten some practical experience via an exchange program with one of those nations. As the Canadians also had M113's and leopard tanks there might have been some further potential for collaboration.
Given the small fleet that Australia would need, maybe 40 units or less, I am not big on introducing a new vehicle into service other than in special circumstances. I would consider the M108 a special circumstance given we were introduceing the US M2 105mm howitzer and were getting them for free. But I think it would be better for Australia to maximize its existing fleet of Centurion tanks and 5.5" howitzers if getting SP howitzers in the 60s and the Leopard tanks and new 155mm howitzers in the 70s/80s.
Ok... I was thinking the 155mm SP guns could have come into service along with the leopard tanks. Maybe buy enough to support a single armoured brigade along with a training cadre ? Maybe 18 to 24 guns to support the brigade, another 6 to 8 for training and some spares so yes 40 or less sounds reasonable.
Still I expect the Australians would also want new towed guns so perhaps 155mm SP guns would be viewed as an un needed luxury. Still they are a way the ADF could have been enhanced in my view ?
Australia likes to wring the most from a large capital buy like the 5.5" howitzers, centurion tanks, Mirage fighters and the like. Spending money in 1976 to replace perfectly adequate howitzers in a low threat environment isn't something we (the royal 'we') like to do when we can get another 7 years (1/4 of the life of type) out of the existing fleet, ammunition production, repair facilities and the rest. However I think in a different TL the 5.5" could be replaced in 1983 by SP 155mm using the leopard chassis.
As for the need, 1st brigade was the heavy brigade so I don't think there is a great problem justifying the expense. Towed 105mm guns would still be bought for the light 3rd brigade and Reserve artillery units.
Yep. I suppose SP AA weapons along the lines of the Gepard could also have been acquired for the armoured brigade.
Very expensive to buy and operate in the low air threat environment of the 70s and 80s. The army used towed bofors until 73 when they got Redeye sams, and Rapier were procured in 1979 and RBS 70 replaced Redeye in 87. So in that environment I think maybe the M113 based VADS in 73 or 79 might be more realistic given the theat and price.
Perhaps but I'm doubtful the VADS would have been considered to have been very effective by the 1980's.
I'm thinking the army might want a small number of mobile (edit to add and preforably some what armoured) anti aircraft systems capable of proving a credible defence against modern attack helicopters. The use case might be to defend crtitical choke points such as temporary bridges during a mobile battle.
Edit to add...
I'm assuming the Australains already have the leopard AVLB and engineer vehicles. If not add those to the shopping list
Last edited:
Perhaps but I'm doubtful the VADS would have been considered to have been very effective by the 1980's.
I'm thinking the army might want a small number of mobile (edit to add and preforably some what armoured) anti aircraft systems capable of proving a credible defence against modern attack helicopters. The use case might be to defend crtitical choke points such as temporary bridges during a mobile battle.
Edit to add...
I'm assuming the Australains already have the leopard AVLB and engineer vehicles. If not add those to the shopping list
You're undoubtedly correct about the effectiveness of the VADS compared to the Gepard in an absolute sense. But South East Asia in the 70s and 80s isn't Germany or Korea, the only attack helicopters in service were AH1F with the Thai Army from 1990. Right up to the 80s the RAAF Mirages in Malaysia and USAF Phantoms in the Phillipines were the only modern, effective combat aircraft units in SEA. Australia's Army air defence assets only have to defend against an intermittent threat from lower capability aircraft that have escaped the SAS/F111 combination.
Ok.. I suppose defining the use case would be helpful. I'm thinking in terms of standing up an armoured brigade that could conceivably be deployed in high intensity combat against the Warsaw Pact in the 1980's in concert with other allies.
Not really our thing, but maybe Korea or the Indian Ocean parts of the middle East could see a biggish armoured force if the reason was good enough. The policy from 1976 was self reliance within an alliance framework and in 87 it went to the specific threat of defending the northern appoaches and the army was to deploy in penny packets to mop up lodgements of small forces: bullshit!
Thanks for that. I'd wondered a bit over the years about the role of the armoured and mech infantry portions of the ADF.
Anyways I'm thinking if more money was found for the ADF, perhaps being able to credibly deploy an armoured brigade into a potentially high intensity combat role against other first tier armoured forces in concert with allies might be something the government would want.
I realize one can quibble a bit over what additional equipment one might think is required for that capability to be credible, but I'm thinking armoured SP artillery and probably armoured SP AA assets would likely be high on the list. I suspect there are things that would be on the shopping list as well.
I realize that the army did in fact have tanks and APC's (and other similar kit) but I'm thinking a few more pieces might be desirable if the government was seriously contemplating a high intensity armoured combat role for the army. (Ie by contributing a heavy brigade as part of a coalition involving divisional or corps level engagements with a peer opponent to the U.S.)
That being said if needed I expect they would have made good use of what they had and they already had the tanks and APC's.
Last edited:
I agree with SP artillery wholeheartedly, and with SP AA if it can be acquired cheaply enough. Thats why I would suggest the M113 VADS with its austere radar fit and part of the 700+ strong M113 fleet rather than the expensive Gepard with its comprehensive radar fit and 100 or so leopard fleet. Even if the SPG was based on the leopard making a bigger fleet the purchase and running costs of the Gepard would be too high for the extra capability over the cheap VADS.
Can you tell I am thinking about my take-home pay packet as I write this stuff?
Can you tell I am thinking about my take-home pay packet as I write this stuff?