Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[GTX]

Mate, from someone who man-packed the bloody thing more times than I care to remember, I'm happy we didn't need the TOW.
It was also an effective anti-bunker weapon, not that the headshed really wanted us to expend such expensive missiles on dirt, logs and sandbags......

Regards
Pioneer

Mind you something like a Land Rover Perentie with TOW could have been interesting. That said, I tend to agree with the question of "against what threat?" (same question I have for things such as IADS and SPAAGs in this scenario).

 

[GTX]

I think getting 8 Oberons would be important and then getting 10 Collins Class subs as there relacement

The challenge with many things such as this (and others in this and similar threads) is that it appears to ignore the perennial challenge the ADF has had re staffing. Unless one introduces national service/conscription or has some other development that increases the number of those in uniform, one is always going to risk having platform sitting idle due to a lack of people to operate them. This is why in my Greater Australia alternate history story from years ago, I first addressed the issue of having a larger Australian population.

 

[Rule of cool]

Mind you something like a Land Rover Perentie with TOW could have been interesting. That said, I tend to agree with the question of "against what threat?" (same question I have for things such as IADS and SPAAGs in this scenario).

These are the things that can be quickly introduced to service if the organisational structures are in place.

FWIW the RAAF did have a quite sophisticated IADS system from the late 60s called 'Hub Cap', although it was mainly for the fighters and Bloodhounds.

 

[Caryina2642]

I think they'd be a fundamentally better submarine, but I do think you're right about jumping too hard into bed with the US too early, DDG, F111, Herc, Huey, M113 etc is quite enough to be going on with.

Getting the 7th and 8th subs are crucial. One of the resons I'm rabid about getting the carrier right from 1959 is that it could de-conflict any FAA top-up buy with the 2nd batch of subs.

A sub tender, or even something else that could be used as a tender in an emergency, would be a nice touch too given the scarcity of good sub bases in Australia even with Fleet Base West being operational earlier.

Agreed on getting the carrier right as early as possible as not to conflict with the 7th & 8th subs
Well we designed and built a Destroyer Tender in HMAS Stalwart at Cockatoo Island in the 60's maybe we could build a Sub Tender based on Stalwart as well?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I think they'd be a fundamentally better submarine, but I do think you're right about jumping too hard into bed with the US too early, DDG, F111, Herc, Huey, M113 etc is quite enough to be going on with.

The sheer scale of performance increase might be worth the headaches of dealing with the "damn Yanks." Barbel-class are arguably the top of the line in diesel boats up till AIP subs happen in the 1990s/early 2000s.

Getting the 7th and 8th subs are crucial. One of the resons I'm rabid about getting the carrier right from 1959 is that it could de-conflict any FAA top-up buy with the 2nd batch of subs.

Agreed that regardless of type Oz needs 8 boats.

A sub tender, or even something else that could be used as a tender in an emergency, would be a nice touch too given the scarcity of good sub bases in Australia even with Fleet Base West being operational earlier.

This. So much this.

IMO Oz should have talked to the Americans about buying a sub tender post WW2. At the latest, buying an LY Spear class in the 1960s, to enter service in 1970-71. (The Spear is identical to the Emory Land class)

 

[Caryina2642]

IMO Oz should have talked to the Americans about buying a sub tender post WW2. At the latest, buying an LY Spear class in the 1960s, to enter service in 1970-71. (The Spear is identical to the Emory Land class)

I would have cockatoo island build a sub tender version of HMAS Stalwart Destroyer Tender that they built in the 60s, to keep shipbuilding going in Australia

 

[Scott Kenny]

I would have cockatoo island build a sub tender version of HMAS Stalwart Destroyer Tender that they built in the 60s, to keep shipbuilding going in Australia

That would be an even better answer!

 

[Rule of cool]

Could Stalwart provide limited tender services for subs herself, if suitably modified?

I have a vague idea that sub operations are different from surface operations and subs can make less use of austere forward bases than surface ships. While Stalwart operating from some anchorage in the north of Australia could support 4 surface escorts continuously submarines might only visit a forward base occasionally and rely much more on their home base.

 

[Caryina2642]

Could Stalwart provide limited tender services for subs herself, if suitably modified?

I have a vague idea that sub operations are different from surface operations and subs can make less use of austere forward bases than surface ships. While Stalwart operating from some anchorage in the north of Australia could support 4 surface escorts continuously submarines might only visit a forward base occasionally and rely much more on their home base.

Possibly she could have, but i think a dedicated submarine tender based on stalwart hull would make sense, thus allow submarines to dock and do repairs in remotes areas and not have to travel back down to fremantle
Plus a Sub Tender would allow continues shipbuidling at cockatoo island
HMAS Stalwart Destroyer Tender
HMAS Platypus Submarine Tender
HMAS Protector AOE
HMAS Success AOE (2nd Protector, Replacing HMAS Supply)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Could Stalwart provide limited tender services for subs herself, if suitably modified?

I have a vague idea that sub operations are different from surface operations and subs can make less use of austere forward bases than surface ships. While Stalwart operating from some anchorage in the north of Australia could support 4 surface escorts continuously submarines might only visit a forward base occasionally and rely much more on their home base.

Maybe?

You'd still be better off having an actual sub tender, plus as Caryina says it'd help keep the shipyard going.

 

[Volkodav]

Possibly she could have, but i think a dedicated submarine tender based on stalwart hull would make sense, thus allow submarines to dock and do repairs in remotes areas and not have to travel back down to fremantle
Plus a Sub Tender would allow continues shipbuidling at cockatoo island
HMAS Stalwart Destroyer Tender
HMAS Platypus Submarine Tender
HMAS Protector AOE
HMAS Success AOR (Replacing HMAS Supply)

Why not two Protectors, or three?

Interspersed with light carriers and large escorts, Cockatoo could have had a pretty much continuous build.

Building the other escorts, including frigates, corvettes and OPVs, Williamstown too could have had a continuous build.

Then submarines, this would be harder, but if the number was increased to twelve, a yard in Adelaide could still have gone ahead.

 

[Caryina2642]

Why not two Protectors, or three?

Interspersed with light carriers and large escorts, Cockatoo could have had a pretty much continuous build.

Building the other escorts, including frigates, corvettes and OPVs, Williamstown too could have had a continuous build.

Then submarines, this would be harder, but if the number was increased to twelve, a yard in Adelaide could still have gone ahead.

Whoops i didnt proof read there HMAS Success is the second Protector.
I would have Williamstown producing 5 the GP Esscort in the 70s to replace the 3 darings in service
https://www.deviantart.com/tzoli/art/Australian-General-Purpose-Escort-760010550
And then have williamstown producing the DDL in the late 70s and 80s to replace the River class

I think with submarines you kinda have to wait till the collins class, but at least if we keep up this shipbuilding through out the 70s and 80s i dont think the collins would face a big of delay entering service just due to have a bigger and more experience and effective workforce

 

[Caryina2642]

@Rule of cool I've just remembered in the 1964 carrier replacement document in stated that there was a need for a sycamore replacement, if you combined this with your scout helicopter proposal would an extra 10 to 12 Scouts make this more likely to happen?

 

[Rule of cool]

@Rule of cool I've just remembered in the 1964 carrier replacement document in stated that there was a need for a sycamore replacement, if you combined this with your scout helicopter proposal would an extra 10 to 12 Scouts make this more likely to happen?

IIUC half the Sycamores were replaced by Wessex and the other half by UH1B/Cs which gain the benefits of the RAAF UH1 buy.

I think the Scouts would be a great little capability to get in the early-mid 60s but I don't really have a plausible way to get them apart of a simple handwave, which obviously isn't nearly as good as having them as a rejected Ministerial option. Perhaps having a single Defence Minister from 1958 would change things somewhat, but I can't see how.

 

[Rule of cool]

Maybe?

You'd still be better off having an actual sub tender, plus as Caryina says it'd help keep the shipyard going.

Sure, a sub tender is the gold standard option, but I don't think it'd get enough work to make it worthwhile.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sure, a sub tender is the gold standard option, but I don't think it'd get enough work to make it worthwhile.

With 8 boats? It's always going to have 3 alongside!

 

[Caryina2642]

With 8 boats? It's always going to have 3 alongside!

Plus it allows for remote area maintenance in areas like the Kimberley or png for the subs so they don't have to sail to a major dockyard

 

[Rule of cool]

I think with 8 boats you would have 3 out of the water, 1 or 2 undergoing full cycle docking and 1 or 2 doing short refits. That leaves 1 or 2 in Sydney for ASW training and 4 at FBW undertaking patrols in the South China Sea. It's those 4 that need forward support on occasion.

 

[Caryina2642]

I think with 8 boats you would have 3 out of the water, 1 or 2 undergoing full cycle docking and 1 or 2 doing short refits. That leaves 1 or 2 in Sydney for ASW training and 4 at FBW undertaking patrols in the South China Sea. It's those 4 that need forward support on occasion.

I would say a bub tender would make operating the subs alot easier.
I wonder with 8 boats & an earlier FBW would the short refits happen in Perth & the full cycle docking happen in Sydney

 

[Caryina2642]

When we got the harpoons in the 80s what are the chances the army creates a land based anti ship RAA regiment like is planned today?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I wonder with 8 boats & an earlier FBW would the short refits happen in Perth & the full cycle docking happen in Sydney

I mean, you still have that travel time to get from Perth or wherever back to Sydney. At 15 knots, you're only doing 350nmi per day.

 

[Rule of cool]

I would say a bub tender would make operating the subs alot easier.

Easier, yes. A lot easier, not so much, especially given the cost. IIUC subs require more time out of water during their service life than a surface warship, meaning they can make less use of a tender than a surface warship.

I wonder with 8 boats & an earlier FBW would the short refits happen in Perth & the full cycle docking happen in Sydney

I'd think so.

I mean, you still have that travel time to get from Perth or wherever back to Sydney. At 15 knots, you're only doing 350nmi per day.

Full cycle docking only occurs every few years per sub and takes more than a year. The transit time to and from Sydney and FBW isn't a huge problem in a ~5-year cycle.

 

[Caryina2642]

Easier, yes. A lot easier, not so much, especially given the cost. IIUC subs require more time out of water during their service life than a surface warship, meaning they can make less use of a tender than a surface warship

I was more thinking about maintenance during operation which would be quite handy to keep subs in area.

I'd think so

So basically could lead to an earlier marine complex out west. I wonder if this would lead to a large dry dock out west

 

[Rule of cool]

I was more thinking about maintenance during operation which would be quite handy to keep subs in area.

IIUC sub tenders are more about replenishment and crew rest than maintenance, they can only do the most minor maintenance.

So basically could lead to an earlier marine complex out west. I wonder if this would lead to a large dry dock out west

Probably not 'aircraft carrier' large, I doubt SW WA has the population and resources to match the sort of work that could be done in Melbourne and Sydney, but certainly enough to keep a reasonable portion of the RAN stationed in the west.

 

[Caryina2642]

IIUC sub tenders are more about replenishment and crew rest than maintenance, they can only do the most minor maintenance.



Probably not 'aircraft carrier' large, I doubt SW WA has the population and resources to match the sort of work that could be done in Melbourne and Sydney, but certainly enough to keep a reasonable portion of the RAN stationed in the west.

Still thats quite helpfull to keep subs on station
I was thinking a dry dock for a destroyers sizes vessels would be handy to have out west

 

[Rule of cool]

Still thats quite helpfull to keep subs on station

Sure, but given buying a mere 10 A4s meant the sacrifice of 2 subs a dedicated tender seems like a waste of resources when something like the Navy Pier at Harold E. Holt VLF station near Exmouth could be rigged up for use in an emergency, it being only 200km from deep water so reachable in a single night. Indeed, Exmouth was used as a forward base for USN subs in WW2 although it was vulnerable to cyclones and was attacked by the Japanese in May 1943.

 

[Caryina2642]

Sure, but given buying a mere 10 A4s meant the sacrifice of 2 subs a dedicated tender seems like a waste of resources when something like the Navy Pier at Harold E. Holt VLF station near Exmouth could be rigged up for use in an emergency, it being only 200km from deep water so reachable in a single night. Indeed, Exmouth was used as a forward base for USN subs in WW2 although it was vulnerable to cyclones and was attacked by the Japanese in May 1943.

Maybe but in the scenario where we have already got enough a4s, all 8 subs it would make sense plus it would be handy assest also for RN and USN subs to use as well

 

[Rule of cool]

I've never put 2 and 2 together, but Harold E. Holt (Americans love the middle initial) VLF station oped in 1968 with its Navy Pier and fuel storage tanks and RAAF Learmonth was upgraded by 1973. This makes the Exmouth area a handy forward base for the RAAF and RAN, it would be quite useful for submarines to do a short turnaround if they don't need much work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IIUC sub tenders are more about replenishment and crew rest than maintenance, they can only do the most minor maintenance.

A proper submarine tender could do the month-long SSBN refit, which is the standard 6-9 month post-deployment refit crammed into roughly 1 month via throwing all the manpower on the planet at it and running 2 shifts at minimum.

What a tender cannot do is anything requiring hull cuts. They have the welders, it's just not safe to do that in the water.

 

[Rule of cool]

A proper submarine tender could do the month-long SSBN refit, which is the standard 6-9 month post-deployment refit crammed into roughly 1 month via throwing all the manpower on the planet at it and running 2 shifts at minimum.

What a tender cannot do is anything requiring hull cuts. They have the welders, it's just not safe to do that in the water.

Fair enough.

The question then becomes does a Navy with 8 subs operating from home bases to the near region with multiple potential forward bases and other ports that might be used need such a comprehensive capability? I'd suggest not, and now Exmouth has made it into my mind I doubt we even need a half-baked capability.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Fair enough.

The question then becomes does a Navy with 8 subs operating from home bases to the near region with multiple potential forward bases and other ports that might be used need such a comprehensive capability? I'd suggest not, and now Exmouth has made it into my mind I doubt we even need a half-baked capability.

Because the Tender allows you to have a "3rd" base in addition to Sydney and Fleet Base West. Or it makes FBW a lot better.

 

[Rule of cool]

Because the Tender allows you to have a "3rd" base in addition to Sydney and Fleet Base West. Or it makes FBW a lot better.

Given Exmouth can be used for a forward base in WA and Cairns and Darwin have small Navy bases that a sub could visit if needed I'd think there are enough bases for 8 subs.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Given Exmouth can be used for a forward base in WA and Cairns and Darwin have small Navy bases that a sub could visit if needed I'd think there are enough bases for 8 subs.

Depends on what is broken. Say the fire control system goes pfffft and lets all the magic white smoke out. A tender could repair that, but the general forward bases can't. It's more efficient to have a single mobile shop to handle things than to have the spare parts scattered across 3 places that may or may not have a system expert on hand.

 

[Rule of cool]

Depends on what is broken. Say the fire control system goes pfffft and lets all the magic white smoke out. A tender could repair that, but the general forward bases can't. It's more efficient to have a single mobile shop to handle things than to have the spare parts scattered across 3 places that may or may not have a system expert on hand.

In that case the sub will have to travel maybe 3000km from its patrol area in the South China Sea to a safe anchorage for a sub tender to do this big job. If the sub has to travel 3000km for a safe anchorage to meet a tender, why not just travel the extra 1800km back to FBW and get the benefit of the entire support infrastructure? I'm just not seeing the benefit of a sub tender in the Australian context.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In that case the sub will have to travel maybe 3000km from its patrol area in the South China Sea to a safe anchorage for a sub tender to do this big job. If the sub has to travel 3000km for a safe anchorage to meet a tender, why not just travel the extra 1800km back to FBW and get the benefit of the entire support infrastructure?

Technically speaking, a sub tender in a safe harbor is the entire support infrastructure. It may even have classrooms to each people the fancy bits of their new gear, but those are usually located on shore.

I'm just not seeing the benefit of a sub tender in the Australian context.

Mostly being able to go to any convenient atoll/lagoon and do the work there. So if you happen to have a convenient safe anchorage 1500km away the sub meets the tender there.

But the other part of it is to have 3 total places with spare parts and technical experts to help fix things. Sydney or wherever on the eastern coast you base your subs. Fleet Base West. And then the Tender, to go to where the subs are broken, if necessary.

Instead of having spare parts and a couple of techs at each base scattered across 3-4 northern bases, you have enough spare parts to build 3-4 sets of internal equipment and all the techs in one place.

 

[Rule of cool]

I think this thread has shown that Australia didn't really make major, crippling mistakes in military procurement during the Cold War era. Things were too slow, underdone, disposed of when they should have been retained in service and other small things like that, but I don't think there's any serious mistakes when Australia chose fundamentally the wrong piece of kit.

 

[Caryina2642]

I mean Australia did make some mistakes in my opinion

• Not replacing Melbourne in the 80s
• The Adelaide class frigates described as 2nd rate escorts by the RAN
• No 4th DDG

To name a few

 

[Rule of cool]

I mean Australia did make some mistakes in my opinion

• Not replacing Melbourne in the 80s
• The Adelaide class frigates described as 2nd rate escorts by the RAN
• No 4th DDG

To name a few

Not replacing Melbourne might have happened as early as 1963, having her serve until 1981 is pretty good going. The 4th DDG and the Adeliade class were things that were underdone, but the ships themselves weren't nightmarish mistakes that needed to be replaced too soon because they were appalling. It's not like the Mirage wasn't a great plane or the Leopard a good tank.

 

[Caryina2642]

Not replacing Melbourne might have happened as early as 1963, having her serve until 1981 is pretty good going. The 4th DDG and the Adeliade class were things that were underdone, but the ships themselves weren't nightmarish mistakes that needed to be replaced too soon because they were appalling. It's not like the Mirage wasn't a great plane or the Leopard a good tank.

Not there weren't nightmarish mistakes but they are still mistakes in all sense of the world in what should have happend.
I mean not building the DDL, LSM Mk2 and protector in the 70s was a mistake

 

[Rule of cool]

Not there weren't nightmarish mistakes but they are still mistakes in all sense of the world in what should have happend.
I mean not building the DDL, LSM Mk2 and protector in the 70s was a mistake

Sure, but the core force structure remained intact with serviceable kit. Those projects were late and/or underdone with the Adelaides, LCH and Success, it's not as if nothing was done and what was done was expensive and worthless.