Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[Rule of cool]

When you look at what the USN deployed on the CVS configured carriers there were two squadrons of Trackers. When the CVS were retired and the CVAs became CVs this dropped to a dingle squadron of twelve, then ten, then only ASW helos. ASW aircraft number has been dictated by capacity and priority, when they could carry twenty-four aircraft, they carried twenty-four aircraft.

Sure, but what was the USN doing with it's CVS'? The RAN's carrier tasks were to escort the convoy(s?) of our reinforcements to SEATO and possibly hold Indonesia at bay alone for a while. I suspect you only need 6 S2s to provide offensive ASW to a single Task Force or convoy, and the USNs CVS' were doing much more given their much greater resources.

It's a bit like the argument that the RAN only needs about a dozen, and maybe as few as nine major combatants because that is the number they have operated for most of the post WWII period. The truth, numbers always needed to be more than twenty, but were sacrificed to pay for other commitments.

I agree 100%, 10 or 11 escorts were well known to be less than needed for RANs peacetime tasks and manifestly incapable of discharging wartime roles. Yet that's all the RAN was getting, so my thoughts are how to maximise this number, maybe get it to 12 or be abe to get to 12 at short order, and have them the most powerful ships available.

 

[Caryina2642]

The Two Ocean Navy proposed when Frazer was Defence Minister in the late 60s was for 3 carriers and 23 destroyers and frigates. Had this eventuated, it would have been during the 70s.

The possibilities were surplus conventional carriers or new-build VSTOL carriers. Australia had shown early interest in the Harrier and had already invested heavily in Wessex and later Sea King ASW helos.

A big chunk of the 23 escorts was the original DDL which back then was basically a sloop or GP frigate. I suspect the actual breakdown would have been something along the lines of:

• 3 carriers
• 3 DDG
• 8 ASW Frigates
• 12 GP Frigates / Sloops

For the carrier you could modernise Sydney and buy Bonaventure off the Canada's and give them the same 8degree rebuild as Melbourne maybe
Build another 2 river class frigates?
I would build 6x type 21 and 6x of the final version of the ddl

 

[Rule of cool]

For the us 10 days off for a carrier is probably pretty handy giving time for maintenance and personal to have a break.

An indication of what a Melbourne Vietnam deployment would look like is Sydney's Korean War deployment.

Sydney completed seven patrols during her 122-day Korean deployment: flying operations were conducted for 42.8 days, poor weather stopped operations for 11.7 days, transits to and from the operational area or between assignments consumed 29.5 days, and 38 days were spent in harbour.

The USN would have to cover those transits and port stays, but I suspect that'd be far easier than covering the entire 4-month period with a major asset.

 

[Volkodav]

Looking more holistically at the 1970s

For the carrier you could modernise Sydney and buy Bonaventure off the Canada's and give them the same 8degree rebuild as Melbourne maybe
Build another 2 river class frigates?
I would build 6x type 21 and 6x of the final version of the ddl

One old salt I knew suggested Hermes, Victorious and Eagle were considered, either all three, or two in addition to retaining Melbourne.

Other suggestions were for a CVS version of the Tawara Class LHA, or even a conventionally powered CTOL version of the French PH75 nuclear-powered helicopter carrier. Considering that there was a conventionally powered PH75 design and the CdG PA design evolved from the PH series, it is quite conceivable that a conventionally powered PA design could have been built for Australia.

The ideal would have been one new carrier in the seventies, plus one used, plus Melbourne, ideally Hermes or Victorious, with Melbourne then replaced in the 80s and the surplus carrier in the 90s.

As much as I like the idea of CTOL, I believe this would be too much of a stretch and the same with a large capable VSTOL/STOVL design. Realism says three small carriers, with smaller than ideal air groups. This will keep expertise up, increase th probability of local construction, and increase the likely hood of an eventual replacement with at least two larger ships.

 

[Volkodav]

Sure, but what was the USN doing with it's CVS'? The RAN's carrier tasks were to escort the convoy(s?) of our reinforcements to SEATO and possibly hold Indonesia at bay alone for a while. I suspect you only need 6 S2s to provide offensive ASW to a single Task Force or convoy, and the USNs CVS' were doing much more given their much greater resources.



I agree 100%, 10 or 11 escorts were well known to be less than needed for RANs peacetime tasks and manifestly incapable of discharging wartime roles. Yet that's all the RAN was getting, so my thoughts are how to maximise this number, maybe get it to 12 or be abe to get to 12 at short order, and have them the most powerful ships available.

We make do with what we have. Look at the PLAN Task Force carry on earlier this year, if the ADF had Global Hawk and or Mariner in service, plus 18 to 20 (ideally more) P-8s and enough frigates, they would have been shadowed for their entire time in and around our EEZ. If we still had long-range strike they would have been, not shadowing them, but conducting training ops not too far away from them but close enough to get the message across.

When you don't have what you need, you make do with what you have.

 

[Rule of cool]

What happens to the DDL if the RAN gets the 4th DDG as well as the 2 River DEs replacing Voyager? Does it remain something akin to a Type 21 frigate?

What happens to the 27 Wessex buy if the RAN doesn't decide in 1959 to cease fixed with flying by 1963? Presumably the very recent buy of so many ASW helicopters had an impact on the 1964 deliberations around the S2 and A4.

 

[Rule of cool]

We make do with what we have. Look at the PLAN Task Force carry on earlier this year, if the ADF had Global Hawk and or Mariner in service, plus 18 to 20 (ideally more) P-8s and enough frigates, they would have been shadowed for their entire time in and around our EEZ. If we still had long-range strike they would have been, not shadowing them, but conducting training ops not too far away from them but close enough to get the message across.

Jindalee would have been tracking them north of PNG.

A couple of F35 flybys would have been cool, but you don't want to give away too many details about it's detectability.

When you don't have what you need, you make do with what you have.

Good procurement policy can make what you have better, within reason, so have more to make do with.

Australia often falls over by trying to do everything, which leaves us with multiple underfunded, undercapitalised, below minimum viable capabilities.

Exactly.

 

[Rule of cool]

Looking for the cost of the 27 Wessex, $16m by the way, I came across this journal first published in 1970 on Australian Defence Procurement. I read it years ago, but I'll be poring over it again.

 

[Volkodav]

Looking for the cost of the 27 Wessex, $16m by the way, I came across this journal first published in 1970 on Australian Defence Procurement. I read it years ago, but I'll be poring over it again.

I saw the cost of the upgrade of Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney to operate Seahawk, as well as the cost of the 16 Seahawks, and it was greater than the rumoured cost of acquiring and refitting Hermes, or of replacing Melbourne with a new ship that could have operated the Sea King.

I could be wrong, but I do know at the time the SH-60B was the second most expensive aircraft type in ADF service, only the P-3C was more expensive, it was rumoured that buying the Lynx instead of Seahawk and not upgrading the first three FFGs, would have freed up enough money to have bought a helicopter carrier, or two, depending on its systems outfit.

There were also deals discussed such as Australia building two repeat Tobruks for the RFA in exchange for the UK building a modified Invincible for us.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Wow, this thread took off since I last looked at it!

Against what threat?

The RAAF, Indonesia, any other communist-backed country that Oz gets involved with.

It certainly can, I wonder if a single Minister of Defence would have had anything to say about re-roling Melbourne into an ASW carrier with no ability to strike targets ashore in support of the Army.

I very strongly suspect that the Minister would verbally slap the RAN upside the head and insist on keeping an ability to strike ashore.

In the Australian trials it threw tracks a lot and the Army was terrified of the ammo. In combat in Vietnam the big gun was very powerful but it was unreliable and as vulnerable as an M113 to RPGs and mines.

In any case the Sheridan was looked at under the same requirement for an air portable AFV to fight in S.E.A. jungles. Keeping the wheeled AFVs and not being so reluctant to deploy them and tanks into S.E.A. wold pretty much eliminate the Sheridan requirement.

I believe there'd still be a requirement for a light vehicle with a big gun on it. Whether the Sheridan would be selected for that role is something we can debate, so pass a beverage!

The Two Ocean Navy proposed when Frazer was Defence Minister in the late 60s was for 3 carriers and 23 destroyers and frigates. Had this eventuated, it would have been during the 70s.

The possibilities were surplus conventional carriers or new-build VSTOL carriers. Australia had shown early interest in the Harrier and had already invested heavily in Wessex and later Sea King ASW helos.

A big chunk of the 23 escorts was the original DDL which back then was basically a sloop or GP frigate. I suspect the actual breakdown would have been something along the lines of:

• 3 carriers
• 3 DDG
• 8 ASW Frigates
• 12 GP Frigates / Sloops

"Two Ocean Navy," but only big enough for 1 carrier at sea 24/7. /snark

• 3 carriers. Okay, you have one carrier group at sea, one in refit and one getting ready to go out to sea. Standard operating procedures.
• Each carrier obviously gets a DDG escort, presumably with extra flag space for the AAW boss. Checks out.
• Each carrier could have up to 4x GP frigates. Checks out.
  • I wouldn't expect more than 2x GP frigates per carrier with the others doing other jobs, and I'd honestly expect the RAN carrier group to be: carrier, 1x DDG, 1x GP frigate, and 1x ASW frigate.
  • That would leave the RAN with 9x DDLs and 5x ASW frigates for other work.
• My real question is the ASW frigates. Why 8? 2 per carrier and 2 for other work? 1 per carrier and 5 for convoys?

 

[Volkodav]

"Two Ocean Navy," but only big enough for 1 carrier at sea 24/7. /snark

• 3 carriers. Okay, you have one carrier group at sea, one in refit and one getting ready to go out to sea. Standard operating procedures.
• Each carrier obviously gets a DDG escort, presumably with extra flag space for the AAW boss. Checks out.
• Each carrier could have up to 4x GP frigates. Checks out.
  • I wouldn't expect more than 2x GP frigates per carrier with the others doing other jobs, and I'd honestly expect the RAN carrier group to be: carrier, 1x DDG, 1x GP frigate, and 1x ASW frigate.
  • That would leave the RAN with 9x DDLs and 5x ASW frigates for other work.
• My real question is the ASW frigates. Why 8? 2 per carrier and 2 for other work? 1 per carrier and 5 for convoys?

The ideal would be five carriers, four would be more sustainable, but three is what I have heard (from those in the FAA at the time) and read (magazine articles of the time).

For combatants, the rule of thumb is alternates of three and five to generate an availability of one or two ships per iteration.

Three gives one deployed, one in port, one in refit or reserve.
Five gives two deployed, two in port, one in refit or reserve.
Eight gives three deployed, three in port and two in refit or reserve.
Ten gives four, four and two etc.

It's a rough guide but usually works out true, one ship at sea for every three, two for every five.

With more complex types, such as submarines, you need more, as you do with aging platforms that require additional upkeep. The more platforms of a type you have, the less impact maintenance requirements have on availability, as you have other platforms you can surge in an emergency. When you are juggling two or three, it doesn't take much for you to have none available.

The figures could as easily been three DDG, six ASW and fourteen GP frigates, or three, five and fifteen, maybe three, ten and ten, even five, nine and nine. How about six, six and eleven?

My ideal would have been:

• 5 small carriers / command or escort cruisers, DDH or whatever you called them
• 5 DLG
• 10 high-end ASW frigates or destroyers,
• 10 GP frigates (possibly with Standard MR as we are talking about the 70s)

If there was extra money, double the number of DLGs or maybe procure a class of 5 DDGs.

 

[Caryina2642]

The Two Ocean Navy proposed when Frazer was Defence Minister in the late 60s was for 3 carriers and 23 destroyers and frigates. Had this eventuated, it would have been during the 70s.

The possibilities were surplus conventional carriers or new-build VSTOL carriers. Australia had shown early interest in the Harrier and had already invested heavily in Wessex and later Sea King ASW helos.

A big chunk of the 23 escorts was the original DDL which back then was basically a sloop or GP frigate. I suspect the actual breakdown would have been something along the lines of:

• 3 carriers
• 3 DDG
• 8 ASW Frigates
• 12 GP Frigates / Sloops

The best way for this to happen is to follow the original RAN post war plan, which included 3 carrier, 6 cruisers & a fleet train

 

[Caryina2642]

The RAAF, Indonesia, any other communist-backed country that Oz gets involved with.

The great RAAF - RAN War of the 60s hahaha, Agreed

I very strongly suspect that the Minister would verbally slap the RAN upside the head and insist on keeping an ability to strike ashore.

I would pay to see that

I believe there'd still be a requirement for a light vehicle with a big gun on it. Whether the Sheridan would be selected for that role is something we can debate, so pass a beverage!

Agreed a bit of a Hi-low situation here is needed

 

[Caryina2642]

An indication of what a Melbourne Vietnam deployment would look like is Sydney's Korean War deployment.

Sydney completed seven patrols during her 122-day Korean deployment: flying operations were conducted for 42.8 days, poor weather stopped operations for 11.7 days, transits to and from the operational area or between assignments consumed 29.5 days, and 38 days were spent in harbour.

The USN would have to cover those transits and port stays, but I suspect that'd be far easier than covering the entire 4-month period with a major asset.

So melbourne would be able to do this off vietnam?

 

[Caryina2642]

What happens to the DDL if the RAN gets the 4th DDG as well as the 2 River DEs replacing Voyager? Does it remain something akin to a Type 21 frigate?

What happens to the 27 Wessex buy if the RAN doesn't decide in 1959 to cease fixed with flying by 1963? Presumably the very recent buy of so many ASW helicopters had an impact on the 1964 deliberations around the S2 and A4.

I Would say the DDL would still go ahead as you would need something to first replace the Darings (So 3 ships say) and then you could propobaly do an extended build to replace the Rivers (So 6 more ships), So 13 ships in the Fleet 4x DDG's & 9 DDL's
Is would happen i could see the fremantles be more corvettes like to provide a low to the Hi of the DDG's & DDL
I would still say the 27 would be brought cause at this stage it was still hoped that a modified county with 3x wessex would be brought so you would need 27 wessex

 

[Caryina2642]

I saw the cost of the upgrade of Adelaide, Canberra and Sydney to operate Seahawk, as well as the cost of the 16 Seahawks, and it was greater than the rumoured cost of acquiring and refitting Hermes, or of replacing Melbourne with a new ship that could have operated the Sea King.

I could be wrong, but I do know at the time the SH-60B was the second most expensive aircraft type in ADF service, only the P-3C was more expensive, it was rumoured that buying the Lynx instead of Seahawk and not upgrading the first three FFGs, would have freed up enough money to have bought a helicopter carrier, or two, depending on its systems outfit.

There were also deals discussed such as Australia building two repeat Tobruks for the RFA in exchange for the UK building a modified Invincible for us.

Why does this not surprise me at all with defence procurement with the australian goverment.
The lynx was going to be brought for the DDL
Why did australia not take this deal with the UK support local shipbuilding and get a carrier in turn

 

[Caryina2642]

Australia should have built this instead of the conversion of the Kanimbla Class
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ole-helicopter-carrier-amphibious-ship.49874/

 

[Pioneer]

Australia should have built this instead of the conversion of the Kanimbla Class
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ole-helicopter-carrier-amphibious-ship.49874/

Yeah, just saw that Rattlesnek posted that.
It's a little tragic that Australia's indigenous defence manufacturing was so detrimentally hollowed out and only rebuilt with our own little Military/Political Industrial Complex in mind. For if we had of kept naval shipbuilding as a strategic importance, such capable and practical LHP's could have been built, if not potentially exported to friendly countries.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Grey Havoc]

Not to mention guided missile cruisers and the like.

 

[Caryina2642]

Yeah, just saw that Rattlesnek posted that.
It's a little tragic that Australia's indigenous defence manufacturing was so detrimentally hollowed out and only rebuilt with our own little Military/Political Industrial Complex in mind. For if we had of kept naval shipbuilding as a strategic importance, such capable and practical LHP's could have been built, if not potentially exported to friendly countries.....

Regards
Pioneer

Agree imagine how the adf and defence manufacturing if the goverment actually invested in it 70s onwards

 

[Hood]

Just chucking in another snippet.

Yesterday I came across the January 1988 edition of Air Forces Monthly, which had a news snippet saying that Australia was a possible customer for the E-3A Sentry since the RAF and Armee de l'Air had bought the type. No further details on who, what, where or why in the 100 word snippet at all.
But something perhaps to chew on in this AU thread.

 

[Rule of cool]

Just chucking in another snippet.

Yesterday I came across the January 1988 edition of Air Forces Monthly, which had a news snippet saying that Australia was a possible customer for the E-3A Sentry since the RAF and Armee de l'Air had bought the type. No further details on who, what, where or why in the 100 word snippet at all.
But something perhaps to chew on in this AU thread.

I did my Year 9 public speaking assignment on that very topic , the teacher called it the 'AE alphabet money-spending device'.

The 'requirement' for AEW came out of an exercise in 1987, presumably the first that we had with USAF AWACS.. Kim Beazley got on TV and said 'with it you win, without it you lose' and there were articles in the papers and magazines. IIRC the E3 was quickly discounted as too expensive, but E2 Hawkeye radar and gear in newly replaced RAAF P3Bs was considered the go, and I believe US customs got these at about this time using the ex-RAAF P3B.

 

[Caryina2642]

I did my Year 9 public speaking assignment on that very topic , the teacher called it the 'AE alphabet money-spending device'.

The 'requirement' for AEW came out of an exercise in 1987, presumably the first that we had with USAF AWACS.. Kim Beazley got on TV and said 'with it you win, without it you lose' and there were articles in the papers and magazines. IIRC the E3 was quickly discounted as too expensive, but E2 Hawkeye radar and gear in newly replaced RAAF P3Bs was considered the go, and I believe US customs got these at about this time using the ex-RAAF P3B.

Yeah thats what I was thinking as well

 

[Rule of cool]

I would still say the 27 would be brought cause at this stage it was still hoped that a modified county with 3x wessex would be brought so you would need 27 wessex

I'm looking at the Wessex buy as something that at least in part could be used elsewhere. The decision to buy the 2 Perth DDGs was made in 1960, so IIUC in 1961 the 27 Wessex were purely for Melbourne to have about 16 in her CAG.

However, if only 18 were bought because the RAN wanted to buy S2s and A4s in the very early 60s then that frees up maybe AUD$5m that could be put towards more A4s, perhaps enough to get the 18 the RAN originally wanted. Or perhaps that $5m could be added to the $8m Melbourne refit to make more like the Karel Doorman's refit.

 

[Caryina2642]

I thought the Wessex were brought in the late 50s when the decision was made to retire the fixed wing aircraft of FAA
That is a possibility though i think ypu could find the money for all of them

 

[Rule of cool]

I thought the Wessex were brought in the late 50s when the decision was made to retire the fixed wing aircraft of FAA
That is a possibility though i think ypu could find the money for all of them

1959 to 1963 was the 'helicopter only FAA' era, with the Wessex being ordered in 1961 and delivered in 1963. In 1963 the RAN reassessed 1) the service lives of the Sea Venom and Gannet and 2) the ability of Melbourne to operate S2s and A4s. This is when it as decided to keep flying Sea Venoms and Gannets until 1967, order S2s in 1964 and A4s in 1965 for delivery in 1967. Melbourne went in for a 2-year refit in that timeframe, which extended the catapult by 9'.

I think a better path would be to change the order of these activities, replace the old aircraft with S2, A4 and Wessex (or other ASW helicopter) from 1963, with the Melbourne getting a Karel Doorman style refit with the 145' BS4A catapult and 8-degree angled deck. I can't help but think if the RAN/FAA didn't have a 'helicopter only' mentality in 1959-63 they wouldn't have ordered 27 ASW helicopters.

 

[Caryina2642]

1959 to 1963 was the 'helicopter only FAA' era, with the Wessex being ordered in 1961 and delivered in 1963. In 1963 the RAN reassessed 1) the service lives of the Sea Venom and Gannet and 2) the ability of Melbourne to operate S2s and A4s. This is when it as decided to keep flying Sea Venoms and Gannets until 1967, order S2s in 1964 and A4s in 1965 for delivery in 1967. Melbourne went in for a 2-year refit in that timeframe, which extended the catapult by 9'.

I think a better path would be to change the order of these activities, replace the old aircraft with S2, A4 and Wessex (or other ASW helicopter) from 1963, with the Melbourne getting a Karel Doorman style refit with the 145' BS4A catapult and 8-degree angled deck. I can't help but think if the RAN/FAA didn't have a 'helicopter only' mentality in 1959-63 they wouldn't have ordered 27 ASW helicopters.

Agreed there mate so an aircraft order of 18 A4s, 24, S2s and 27 Wessex plus the rebuild of Melbourne how much would this all cost

 

[Rule of cool]

Agreed there mate so an aircraft order of 18 A4s, 24, S2s and 27 Wessex plus the rebuild of Melbourne how much would this all cost

Firstly, the switch to decimal currency in 1966 was 1 Au Pound for 2 AUD$, the Au Pound was pegged at USD $2.20 and the AUD was pegged at USD $1.12.

The carrier replacement docs said 24 S2s and 18 A4s would cost 43m pounds and 14 S2s and 10 A4s would cost 25m pounds. However, assuming the meagre available information on their costs is correct, I think that the 14 S2s cost $16m, and 10 A4s cost 9.2m Pounds ($18.4m), about 17m pounds or 8m Pounds less than estimated 25m.

27 Wessex cost $16m (8m Pounds).

The 1967-69 Melbourne refit cost about $8m, the 1955-58 Karel Doorman refit cost 25m guilders (about USD $6m at the time) and the 1957-60 Minas Gerais refit cost USD$27m with allegations of corruption.

All in all, the 27 Wessex cost 8m Pounds, 24 S2s and 18 A4s should have a 35-43m Pound budget and the rebuild should have a 10-15m Pound budget, 50-60m Pounds all up 1961 to 1965. However, we spent 25-33m Pounds of that anyway 1961 to 1969.

 

[Caryina2642]

Firstly, the switch to decimal currency in 1966 was 1 Au Pound for 2 AUD$, the Au Pound was pegged at USD $2.20 and the AUD was pegged at USD $1.12.

The carrier replacement docs said 24 S2s and 18 A4s would cost 43m pounds and 14 S2s and 10 A4s would cost 25m pounds. However, assuming the meagre available information on their costs is correct, I think that the 14 S2s cost $16m, and 10 A4s cost 9.2m Pounds ($18.4m), about 17m pounds or 8m Pounds less than estimated 25m.

27 Wessex cost $16m (8m Pounds).

The 1967-69 Melbourne refit cost about $8m, the 1955-58 Karel Doorman refit cost 25m guilders (about USD $6m at the time) and the 1957-60 Minas Gerais refit cost USD$27m with allegations of corruption.

All in all, the 27 Wessex cost 8m Pounds, 24 S2s and 18 A4s should have a 35-43m Pound budget and the rebuild should have a 10-15m Pound budget, 50-60m Pounds all up 1961 to 1965. However, we spent 25-33m Pounds of that anyway 1961 to 1969.

So not too bad really. Quite easily possible. Especially with 58 merger of defence departments or an earlier Indonesia threat.
Did the a4s and s2s get the same financial payment plan as the ddgs?

 

[Pioneer]

I Would say the DDL would still go ahead as you would need something to first replace the Darings (So 3 ships say) and then you could propobaly do an extended build to replace the Rivers (So 6 more ships), So 13 ships in the Fleet 4x DDG's & 9 DDL's
Is would happen i could see the fremantles be more corvettes like to provide a low to the Hi of the DDG's & DDL
I would still say the 27 would be brought cause at this stage it was still hoped that a modified county with 3x wessex would be brought so you would need 27 wessex

Agree, the RAN should have gone corvette sized vessels after the 'Attack'-class patrol boats. The RAN so-called inshore patrol boats seemed to spend more and more time out in open ocean operations till this day, fatiguing the life out of such vessels to this very day!
Always thought it was stupid that Australia didn't pursue the joint Malaysian/Australian OPV program harder and to fruition.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/h...eal-sank/140e8432-78ac-425c-bbcb-57c95fc97b00

The fact that the RAN has only just now fielded the Arafura-class decades after such a vessel is almost criminal IMO.
But then again, nobody in Defence is held to account.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

nobody in Defence is held to account.

The internal culture in Defence Procurement is staggeringly risk averse. Everyone can dream up the most amazing risks, and everyone is terrified to discount, mitigate or manage such risks in case something happens and they, as a low-level dogsbody gets crucified for it.

 

[Rule of cool]

So not too bad really. Quite easily possible. Especially with 58 merger of defence departments or an earlier Indonesia threat.
Did the a4s and s2s get the same financial payment plan as the ddgs?

It's the difference between 30m spread of 8 years 1961-69 and say 55m spread over 4 years 1961-65, it's almost double the annual expenditure. However, given some of the numbers talked about with the Essex 55m pounds is chicken fee, if it is put forward alongside some of the other options it might get adopted on its merits.

I don't know if the aircraft got the same financial terms as the DDGs. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't due to the much longer timeline for shipbuilding, such as ordering long-lead items before the ship is even laid down. That said the big FAA programme we're talking about costs about the same as the first 2 DDGs, which were about $50m each.

 

[Caryina2642]

Agree, the RAN should have gone corvette sized vessels after the 'Attack'-class patrol boats. The RAN so-called inshore patrol boats seemed to spend more and more time out in open ocean operations till this day, fatiguing the life out of such vessels to this very day!
Always thought it was stupid that Australia didn't pursue the joint Malaysian/Australian OPV program harder and to fruition.

https://www.9news.com.au/national/h...eal-sank/140e8432-78ac-425c-bbcb-57c95fc97b00

The fact that the RAN has only just now fielded the Arafura-class decades after such a vessel is almost criminal IMO.
But then again, nobody in Defence is held to account.

Regards
Pioneer

Yep agree there mate.
For an attack class replacement i would've gone with the vicketes vedette type 633.
And the tenix jpv would have been such a handy vessel and 100% better than the armidales

 

[Caryina2642]

It's the difference between 30m spread of 8 years 1961-69 and say 55m spread over 4 years 1961-65, it's almost double the annual expenditure. However, given some of the numbers talked about with the Essex 55m pounds is chicken fee, if it is put forward alongside some of the other options it might get adopted on its merits.

I don't know if the aircraft got the same financial terms as the DDGs. I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't due to the much longer timeline for shipbuilding, such as ordering long-lead items before the ship is even laid down. That said the big FAA programme we're talking about costs about the same as the first 2 DDGs, which were about $50m each.

I would still say its doable as governments are very good at finding money when needed

 

[Caryina2642]

So say we do the Melbourne rebuild how long will.she last what will her replacement be?
RAN in the 1990's

• Melbourne replacement
• 4x DDGs & 8x DDL (will need replacing, what will it be? Home built design or modified one from overseas?
• 12x corvettes (replaced by 12x tenix jpv)
• 8x Oberon (replaced by Collins class, do you increase sub numbers?

 

[Rule of cool]

I would still say its doable as governments are very good at finding money when needed

The 200m pound cap was entirely arbitrary.
The following is what the Navy spent on Aircraft, armament, ships, electronics, electrical stores, in AUD, and what the total defence spend was.

• 1960-61 - 30.6m of 401.3m
• 1961-62 - 30.8m of 409.4m
• 1962-63 - 34.8m of 423.3m
• 1963-64 - 42.0m of 518.7m
• 1964-65 - 52.4m of 598.1m
• 1965-66 - 73.0m of 741.9m
• 1966-67 - 93.4m of 950.1m
• 1967-68 - 105.5m of 1,109.5m
• 1968-69 - 95.1m of 1,164.7m

What's needed is to take out $58m over that entire period and cram in ~$100m into 1961-66.

 

[Caryina2642]

The 200m pound cap was entirely arbitrary.
The following is what the Navy spent on Aircraft, armament, ships, electronics, electrical stores, in AUD, and what the total defence spend was.

• 1960-61 - 30.6m of 401.3m
• 1961-62 - 30.8m of 409.4m
• 1962-63 - 34.8m of 423.3m
• 1963-64 - 42.0m of 518.7m
• 1964-65 - 52.4m of 598.1m
• 1965-66 - 73.0m of 741.9m
• 1966-67 - 93.4m of 950.1m
• 1967-68 - 105.5m of 1,109.5m
• 1968-69 - 95.1m of 1,164.7m

What's needed is to take out $58m over that entire period and cram in ~$100m into 1961-66.

That is entirely possible to do or you just raise the budget a bit earlier which is also possible. It just depends on which on the government preferes at the time

 

[Rule of cool]

Just a word on a two-ocean Navy. It doesn't mean that you need 2 equal navies, rather it means that the Navy has bases to allow it to operate in either ocean and dividing the Navy to operate from either base. Prior to Fleet Base West being built the RANs ability to operate in the Indian Ocean was limited to what could be supported by civilian facilities, that said I think a refit on a River class was done in a civilian yard in the early 80s. However, to really operate in the IO a proper Naval base needs to be built.

If FBW was built earlier, I think the subs, or most of them, would be operated from there as it is a better base for subs than the East Coast.

 

[Caryina2642]

Just a word on a two-ocean Navy. It doesn't mean that you need 2 equal navies, rather it means that the Navy has bases to allow it to operate in either ocean and dividing the Navy to operate from either base. Prior to Fleet Base West being built the RANs ability to operate in the Indian Ocean was limited to what could be supported by civilian facilities, that said I think a refit on a River class was done in a civilian yard in the early 80s. However, to really operate in the IO a proper Naval base needs to be built.

If FBW was built earlier, I think the subs, or most of them, would be operated from there as it is a better base for subs than the East Coast.

The from empire defence to the long haul document, mentions having fremantle as a naval base so there were plans post war for base out west, so.it is possible for an earlier FBW.
Agrees you don't need an equal navy, though in an ideal world you wpuld have as close as possible to equal so you don't have to wait for assest to transfer from one coast to the over for cases like the Chinese warships off the coast
Thats why I think Australia needs
12 subs with 6 on east coast
A fighter sqn in Perth
MPA sqns in Darwin, Perth, Townsville & Adelaide
But it's unlikely to happen

 

[Scott Kenny]

Just a word on a two-ocean Navy. It doesn't mean that you need 2 equal navies, rather it means that the Navy has bases to allow it to operate in either ocean and dividing the Navy to operate from either base. Prior to Fleet Base West being built the RANs ability to operate in the Indian Ocean was limited to what could be supported by civilian facilities, that said I think a refit on a River class was done in a civilian yard in the early 80s. However, to really operate in the IO a proper Naval base needs to be built.

Ah, okay, that makes a LOT more sense!