Fictional Navy Inventory (Fleets & Aircraft)

In 1964 following the collision between HMAS Melbourne and HMAS Voyager fires break out on the carrier followed by a series of explosions leading to her loss, though 90% of her crew are saved. In order to replace her the Australian Government accepts the soon to be retired British carrier HMS Centaur.

05_centaur.jpg
07_centaur.jpg
 
Last edited:
What if RAN had just bought CLs as they are more suited to the long range commerce warfare of the IO/P oceans?

By 1919 they could have 7 CLs and base them at each of the major cities of Australia to spread the jobs and money around and encourage more local reserve forces?

So say inspired from Wiki list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cruisers#Australia,

Protected cruiser
  • HMAS Encounter old protected cruiser bought from RN 1912, scraped 1932
British Chatham class
  • Australia (1911) - renamed Townsville 1927, Scraped 1947
  • Sydney (1911) - renamed Port Augusta 1928, Scraped 1947
  • Melbourne (1912) - Scuttled after damaged defeating SMS Emden 11 September 1914
  • Brisbane (1912) - renamed Cairns 1937, sunk by aircraft off Malaya 10 December 1941
  • Adelaide (1912) - renamed Launceston 1938, Scraped 1947
  • Perth (1915) - First ship built in Cockatoo Island Dockyard, Sydney, renamed Rockhampton 1939, Scraped 1948
  • Hobart (1917) - renamed Darwin 1939, sunk 19 November 1941 by Kormoran
British County class
  • Australia (1927) - BU 1954
  • Canberra (1927) - Scuttled following air attack off Crete, 15 Jan 42
  • Melbourne (1929) - Sunk off Savo Island on 9 August 1942
  • Sydney (1931) - BU 1953
Australian State class
  • New South Wales (1933) - BU 1956
  • Queensland (1933) - Sunk during the First Battle of Java Sea 28 February 1942
  • South Australia (1935) - Sunk by Japanese carrier aircraft, 5 April 1942 IOR
  • Victoria (1935) - Scuttled following Second Battle of the Java Sea, 1 March 1942
  • Western Australia (1937) - BU 1957
  • Tasmania (1937) - Scuttled following battle of Cape Masoala 15 February 1941
British Town class
  • Brisbane (1938) - BU 1959
  • Adelaide (1939) -BU 1960
  • Perth (1940) - Sunk by Japanese carrier aircraft, 5 April 1942 IOR
  • Hobart (1940) - BU 1961
  • Melbourne (1942) - Preserved as museum ship
  • Canberra (1942) - BU 1965
  • Perth (1944) - BU 1966
........

What do the State Class look like?
 
To start with a simple one,

1914: Greece takes up the Argentine offer to buy both Moreno and Rivadavia, which are commissioned in the navy as Helli and Lemnos in late 1914. The Greeks do not buy Idaho and Mississippi from the USN the same year. The two ships serve in the blockade of the Dardanelles in ww1 and in the Asia Minor war afterwards, receive new fire control in France in 1925 and then in view of the reconstruction of battlecruiser Yavuz are extensively modernised in 1927-32, most notably removing the two wing turrets from each ship, in exchange for increasing deck armor to 5in, extensive anti-torpedo defenses and new oil fired machinery increasing top speed to 26-27 knots.

The two modernised ships would see extensive service during WW2, sinking the Italian battleship Vittorio Veneto as it was limping back to Italy from a torpedo hit during the battle of Cape Matapan and escaping to Alexandria after the occupation of Greece in April 1941. In exile the two ships would see extensive service in the Mediterranean before returning to Greece in 1944 and getting decommissioned in the early 1950s.
 
What do the State Class look like?
That would be telling.....errr I might have to decide.......

My thought where a locally made 10,000t ships due to dissatisfaction or requirement to conform to AU LNT, cant decide if they are repeat County guns 4x8 or say 6" maybe 4x3 or 6x2 to be different?
 
Swedish navy from my TL https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/sweden-wank-sweden-wins-at-poltava.98682/ at the end of ITTL WW2 1923

Note: Only fighting ships. Tenders etc not included

Baltic navy based in Karlsborg
Task force K1
CLC
CA
DD
DD
DD

Task force K2
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
PT
FF
FF
FF
Task force K3
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
Atlantic navy based in Göteborg
1st A navy
CV
BB
BB
BB
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CL
CL
CL
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
2nd A navy
CVE
CL
DD
DD
DD
DD
3rd A navy
BB
CA
CA
DD
DD
DD
K
K
K
4th A navy
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS

North pole squadron based in Murmansk
CA
CL
DD
DD
DD
DD
K
K
K
K

Pacific navy based in Protestania
1st P navy
CV
CV
CV
CV
BB
BB
CLAA
CLAA
CLAA
CLAA
CLAA
CA
CA
CA
CA
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
DD
2nd P navy
CV
CV
CV
CV
CLAA
CLAA
CLAA
CLAA
DD
DD
DD
DD
3rd P navy
BB
CGN
CGN
CGN
DD
DD
DD
Black sea fleet based at Sevastopol
Task force B1
BB
DD
DD
DD
DD
 
1965 rthe RAN/Govt order 6 US Barbel class conventional submarines.

Good call, especially after the bow planes were moved to the sail.

I would want them with the Oberons of the RAN. Historically the Oberons had a reputation for being very quiet, and the RAN boats of that class worked well with special forces....

My thoughts,
 
I always thought that the AMX looked pretty cool, so something like that with a touch of Jaguar and Mirage F1 thrown in.
Yah, a touch of E Type would be pretty neat. But I don't think Dick Teague would go that way. Oh, right. You mean airplanes. Carry on.
 

Riain

Banned
Good call, especially after the bow planes were moved to the sail.

I would want them with the Oberons of the RAN. Historically the Oberons had a reputation for being very quiet, and the RAN boats of that class worked well with special forces....

My thoughts,

I would have the Barbels instead of the Oberons. The Oberons were the final iteration of the German Type XXI Elektroboote concept whereas the Barbels were the first subs with the Albacore hull shape and single shaft.
 
Greece builds the 5th and 6th MEKO 200HNs proposed. These were supposed to be enlarged ships with Mk41 oriented for AAW... and if that sounds suspiciously like someone putting a Sachsen class variant under a different name... why that was probably correct.
 

Riain

Banned
Depends on if you care about the cost? (I'm presuming Barbel is far more....)

When we bought the DDGs the US offered very generous financial terms, we paid for the first two in installments over 8 years. I imagine that if similar terms are also offered for the submarines it would offset the extra cost.
 
From a fictional history WIP. (It's 1974 there.)

U.S. Navy operates:

  • 12 Auraria-class patrol airship carriers (each with 90 Kettering AQ3K-2 Marlons, 90 YARA RQ11Y-2 Amuns, 25 WDMicroflyte PQ7W-1 Albatrosses, & 25 YARA KQ8Y-3 Tridents)
  • 72 Falcon-class escort airship carriers (each with 300 WDMicroflyte AQ2W-4 Cimbris)
  • 12 Delos-class early warning airships
  • 6 Cayley-class airship support vessels
  • 31 Rei-class SSGs (30 Mark 70 torpedoes & 10 Garmr cruise missiles each); being replaced by Tullibees
  • 47 Vaquita-class SSGs (30 Mark 70 torpedoes & 10 Garmr or Keewatin cruise missiles each); being replaced by Tullibees
  • 25 Tullibee-class SSG(E)s (40 Mark 70 torpedoes & 18 Keewatin cruise missiles each)
USN does not operate its own provisioning ships, including air tankers; that service is provided by a dedicated logistics force.

Edit: Not really OT, but FYI. Former SSGs are surplussed off to friendly nations (especially, but not only, Poland, Pakistan, Burma, & Vietnam); older SSGs in their service are returned, demilitarized, & sold off at scrap prices to universities & responsible institutions (such as Woods Hole, the Smithsonian, or the Cousteau Foundation) for oceanographic research. (Currently about 200 1930s & newer SSGs have been so converted.)
 
Last edited:
One of my pet scenarios is a coalition of current and former carrier operating countries approach the US for the design of the CVV (a mid-1970s design to replace the Midways with similar-sized carriers instead of more capable Nimitz class), with plans to build them to replace their carriers or get back into carriers. Multiple hulls are expected to keep unit costs down.

https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2019/04/blast-from-past-aircraft-carrier-medium.html

CVVb.jpg


322ff0132fb2906950ea2c7af9ca9e2c6cf3eb376dee2e38c6f8a1c7572be770.jpg


So Australia, Spain, Brazil and Canada are the customers, Spain looking to build locally, the others contracting US yards to build their ships. All four are laid down in 1981-82, and completed in 1985-86. Spanish Matador pilots already participate in the USN's aviator training program in Pensacola, the other nations follow suit. The Australian and Brazilian ships initially deploy with a small number of helicopters, A-4 Skyhawks and S-2 Trackers from their legacy carriers, while Canada and Spain are procuring SH-60F Seahawks, F-18 Hornets, E-2 Hawkeyes and S-3 Vikings for their carriers. The Brazilians eventually deploy a carrier-capable AMX/A-1, AEW Merlin Helicopters and home-grown turboprop replacement for the Trackers, while the Australians follow Canada and Spain (all three also operating the F-18 with their Air Forces as well.)

The 1990s RAN main units are

1 CVV Australia (24 F-18, 12 S-3, 4 E-2, 12 SH-60F, 4 SH-60 utility, 4 KS-3)
3 Perth class DDG
6 Adelaide class FFG
2+6 ANZAC class FFH
3+3 Collins class SS

Australia participates in the Gulf War launching airstrikes on Iraq in the '90s, and attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq in the 2000s. She covered the LSH Tobruk's evacuation of Australian citizens from the Solomons in 2000, the deployment of the 3rd Brigade to East Timor in 2006 and provided disaster relief in Samoa in 2009.

In the 2000s, the S-3s, KS-3s and Perths retire, and in the 2010s the F-18s are replaced with 36 Super Hornets with buddy-tanking capability, 6 EF-18G Growlers are added the E-2s are replaced with E-2Ds. Four Hobart class DDG are added late in the decade to finally fully replace the Perth class DDGs.

A replacement carrier for the RAN is planned for the late 2020s with gas turbines and EMALs catapults.

I have a few other scenarios, an alternate interwar/WWII/postwar RN, an Italy that retains naval air after World War I and India buying a pair of CVF instead of Gorshkov and the indigenous carrier. But those are other posts...
 
If Australia and Canada feel they need to invest in CVV type carriers in the 1970's then Britain surely will as well. Expect at least one to be ordered as a replacement for Ark Royal and hopefully at least one more.
 
What about GB if they can join in rather than develop harriers and Invincibles?

I think the RN had the Invincibles and Harrier rather far along by 1980-81, but they could as well as replacements for CVA-01 and Ark Royal/Eagle. They already have Buccaneers and Spey-powered Phantoms to operate from one at least, once re-appropriated from the RAF. The Invincibles could go back to ASW platforms, carrying a small Harrier complement for local air defense while the CVVs provide fleet defense at range, AEW and strike. Like Spain, the RN would probably want to build locally, and use more of their own systems over USN systems, minimizing savings with the other CVVs.

Of course, CVV would be in progress during the Falklands conflict, so the RN might look to get CTOL back to sea as soon as possible....

I do think F/A-18s and Super Hornets in FAA colors would be good looking aircraft!

My thoughts,
 
If Australia is going to buy a full sized fleet carrier we certainly aren't going to buy what was considered to be 'a second rate escort'. We would build the home grown DDL in it's final form.

Hi Riain,

I'm familiar with the DDL project (Mk 13 launcher, 5in gun, CIWS, 2 helos), and as I recall, the RAN itself called for its cancellation. And that was back in 1973; again, IIRC. By the 1990s, the FFG-7s were offering most of the capability (Mk 13 launcher, 3in gun instead of the 5in gun, CIWS, 2 helos) proven at sea, with no design/development costs. I think the FFGs would still have utilitarian roles to play, whether or not they get folded into a carrier escort mission. Hence my inclusion of their historical procurement.

Regards,
 
One of my pet scenarios is a coalition of current and former carrier operating countries approach the US for the design of the CVV (a mid-1970s design to replace the Midways with similar-sized carriers instead of more capable Nimitz class), with plans to build them to replace their carriers or get back into carriers. Multiple hulls are expected to keep unit costs down.

So Australia, Spain, Brazil and Canada are the customers, Spain looking to build locally, the others contracting US yards to build their ships. All four are laid down in 1981-82, and completed in 1985-86. Spanish Matador pilots already participate in the USN's aviator training program in Pensacola, the other nations follow suit. The Australian and Brazilian ships initially deploy with a small number of helicopters, A-4 Skyhawks and S-2 Trackers from their legacy carriers, while Canada and Spain are procuring SH-60F Seahawks, F-18 Hornets, E-2 Hawkeyes and S-3 Vikings for their carriers. The Brazilians eventually deploy a carrier-capable AMX/A-1, AEW Merlin Helicopters and home-grown turboprop replacement for the Trackers, while the Australians follow Canada and Spain (all three also operating the F-18 with their Air Forces as well.)

CVV was supposed to have a crew between 3,400-3,900 men. The whole RAN crews in 1980 was a bit over 5,000 sailors, HMAS Melbourne included. Where does the crew come from? Not much different for the Canadians and Spanish...
 

Riain

Banned
Hi Riain,

I'm familiar with the DDL project (Mk 13 launcher, 5in gun, CIWS, 2 helos), and as I recall, the RAN itself called for its cancellation. And that was back in 1973; again, IIRC. By the 1990s, the FFG-7s were offering most of the capability (Mk 13 launcher, 3in gun instead of the 5in gun, CIWS, 2 helos) proven at sea, with no design/development costs. I think the FFGs would still have utilitarian roles to play, whether or not they get folded into a carrier escort mission. Hence my inclusion of their historical procurement.

Regards,

Yes the RAN recommended that the DDL be cancelled, but in the context of the ALP not supporting the design while in opposition and winning government for the first time in 23 years with a large anti-Vietnam platform.

After cancellation the RAN looked at the British Type 42, the Dutch Tromp and the US OHP FFGs and rejected the OHPs as 2nd rate; they wanted the twin shaft, 4 engine Type 42 with the US 5" gun and Mk 13 or even Mk 26 twin launcher and 2 SAM guidance channels along with a 3rd channel for the gun and backup SAM. They didn't want the OHP with its single shaft, single SAM guidance channel and small gun, but got it because of concerns over putting US systems in a British ship which drives up the cost and risk.

The fact of the matter is that capability costs money, you can't tightarse a ship programme and expect to get a first rate outcome.
 
Top