Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

I looks as if Harpoon capability came with the F111C Pave Tack upgrade or series of upgrades. That's the crux of my question, and perhaps fitting Harpoons to River class DEs. Everything else gets he Harpoon for free, more or less.
 
I looks as if Harpoon capability came with the F111C Pave Tack upgrade or series of upgrades. That's the crux of my question, and perhaps fitting Harpoons to River class DEs. Everything else gets he Harpoon for free, more or less.
Yep basically what i thought once the harpoon becomes available the ADF would go harpoon mad no matter what. So a good way to increase the lethality of the ADF is to fit the harpoon to more platforms such as the River DEs
 
Yep basically what i thought once the harpoon becomes available the ADF would go harpoon mad no matter what. So a good way to increase the lethality of the ADF is to fit the harpoon to more platforms such as the River DEs

I think with the Harrier Carrier would reduce the urgency to put Harpoons on Rivers, although their replacements certainly would have them.
 
I think with the Harrier Carrier would reduce the urgency to put Harpoons on Rivers, although their replacements certainly would have them.
Possibly though if the DDL gets built they where to be fitted with canister harpoon launchers. So it shouldnt be too more expensive to get more canisters for the rivers in a mid life update/rebuild. As it the update/rebuild would happen around the same time as the DDLs being built
 
It's a bit concerning that Yarra was decommissioned in 1985 after only 24 years' service when others did 26-30 years' service. IIUC they would have been pretty obsolescent by the 80s, the first 4 would need a major mid-life upgrade in the 70s.
 
It's a bit concerning that Yarra was decommissioned in 1985 after only 24 years' service when others did 26-30 years' service. IIUC they would have been pretty obsolescent by the 80s, the first 4 would need a major mid-life upgrade in the 70s.
That why i was suggesting the mid life upgraded for the rivers, so theres not a gap between there decomissioning and the anzacs entering service. Another option would to be build more ddls to also replace the rivers
 
One option for the RAN is that you are able to Replace the 3 Daring's, 3 Perth's & the 6 Rivers with 16 DDLs and have 99 personal spare. (If my math and the figures i used are right) Plus if the modified Invincible class is built to replace Melbourne would mean there would be around 300 personal spare as well, so there are 399 personal free for other things such as more submarines, mine warfare vessels, 3rd oiler, ect.
With 16 DDLs that gives you the number of escorts desired in the late 80s White Paper stated. Though a 2nd dockyard would probably be required for the build.
In this scenario i cant see the ANZAC class frigates being built, which to me means the proposed Tenix Corvette would have to be built to replace the Fremantle's to allow continuous ship building and to have a 2nd tier patrol and escort force.
 
Brushing up on the DDL, the design at cancellation was considered to have significant technical risk, which isn't surprising given its size and complexity. The final spec is much like the type of ships mature ship designing and building countries like the US and UK were undertaking, which is a lot for Australia's extremely immature ship design capability. The complexity also drove the considerable cost, which was the other aspect behind its cancellation in favour of the cheaper US OHP FFG.

As such the DDL in its 1973 spec isn't a suitable ship to base an entire fleet around. In fact, I beginning to think Australia should have taken a different path with the DDL, perhaps built something like the Type 21 Frigate or Brazilian Niteroi, something a bit smaller, simpler and cheaper where 4 could replace 3 Darings to creep the numbers up.
 
Brushing up on the DDL, the design at cancellation was considered to have significant technical risk, which isn't surprising given its size and complexity. The final spec is much like the type of ships mature ship designing and building countries like the US and UK were undertaking, which is a lot for Australia's extremely immature ship design capability. The complexity also drove the considerable cost, which was the other aspect behind its cancellation in favour of the cheaper US OHP FFG.

As such the DDL in its 1973 spec isn't a suitable ship to base an entire fleet around. In fact, I beginning to think Australia should have taken a different path with the DDL, perhaps built something like the Type 21 Frigate or Brazilian Niteroi, something a bit smaller, simpler and cheaper where 4 could replace 3 Darings to creep the numbers up.
I agree having a whole fleet of juat DDLs isnt a blanced fleet. It was just a thought of how many ddls could u have in place of the 12ish escorts with there crews. I feel like building 8ish Type 21s first than building 8ish DDLs would be a better idea.
In my opion thr cancelling of the DDLs, AOE and LSM mk2s was a strategic mistake that setback auatralias shipbuilding capabilities. The problem is government believes that australia cabt build things and thus shouldnt. Imagine if we had built these ships we wpuld have become more independt and capable in defence
 
In my opion thr cancelling of the DDLs, AOE and LSM mk2s was a strategic mistake that setback auatralias shipbuilding capabilities. The problem is government believes that australia cabt build things and thus shouldnt. Imagine if we had built these ships we wpuld have become more independt and capable in defence

It sure was.

Independence in Defence such as shipbuilding has to be nurtured and grown, having our first domestic designed warship as a complex DDG was a mistake, a Frigate would have been far more achievable.
 
It sure was.

Independence in Defence such as shipbuilding has to be nurtured and grown, having our first domestic designed warship as a complex DDG was a mistake, a Frigate would have been far more achievable.
We already have heaps of experience building frigates and destroyers, plus maintaining the perth class DDGs, so i dont think it would have been out if the realm of possibility to have build a DDG as our first indigious warship design. Especially with US and UK help. There would probably some delays but always happens even with the bigger powers.
 
We already have heaps of experience building frigates and destroyers, plus maintaining the perth class DDGs, so i dont think it would have been out if the realm of possibility to have build a DDG as our first indigious warship design. Especially with US and UK help. There would probably some delays but always happens even with the bigger powers.

Building isn't the problem, although I think there's probably a big difference between building a River class DE and a Perth class DDG, the design is. Its one thing to design an LSM or AOE or small and reasonably simple warship, its another to design a world class DDG from scratch as your first major warship.
 
Building isn't the problem, although I think there's probably a big difference between building a River class DE and a Perth class DDG, the design is. Its one thing to design an LSM or AOE or small and reasonably simple warship, its another to design a world class DDG from scratch as your first major warship.
That is true though Y-ARD was helping designing the DDL so it isnt like australia was going 100% alone with it. Agree it would have helped if the joint design RN/RAN GP escort frigate the predacessor to thw type 21 went ahead. Would make building the DDL less risky
 
Britain rejected the RAN County because they couldn't spare the design staff to do the re-design work, and IIUC the CVA01 project suffered from an insufficient number of ship designers and naval draftsmen. This doesn't make me optimistic about Australia's chances of designing an advanced guided missile destroyer from scratch without running into significant problems. I think a frigate would be far more achievable, and if the RAN had gotten the 4th DDG that's likely the way the RAN would have gone.
 
I think if the RAN went to the private sector theyvwould have jumped on modifiing the county class for the RAN. Ive read on here somewher that if the modified county went ahed 2 were to be built in the UK and 2 in Australia. If that happend Australia would have had the experience building DDGs so than the DDL would become less of a risk
 
It's a bit concerning that Yarra was decommissioned in 1985 after only 24 years' service when others did 26-30 years' service. IIUC they would have been pretty obsolescent by the 80s, the first 4 would need a major mid-life upgrade in the 70s.
Large crews, short ranged, and once Ikara and Seacat were retired, they were little more than glorified patrol boats. If they had helicopters or something better than an option of a jury-rigged RBS 70 they may have been worth keeping a little longer. I have heard, but not read, that the Rivers had structural corrosion issues, no problem for the initial planned life span, but would have been very difficult and expensive to rectify and not very good value for money.

Yarra was technically replaced by Darwin and the next two with Melbourne and Newcastle, the last three were replaced by ANZACs. The remaining five ANZACs were intended as an increase in Major Combatant numbers, but ended up becoming DDG and FFG replacements, as numbers drew down.

Now had the 70s gone differently, i.e. a general-purpose frigate or sloop to increase numbers, DDL replacing the Darings, then the Rivers could have been replaced with an ASW type, one for one in the 80s, Type 23 would have been good, but the Type 22 Batch 3 would have been very nice. Then Burkes to replace the Perths in the late 90s.
 
Just some context, Australia built three large destroyers, two sloops, twelve frigates and over fifty corvettes during and immediately after WWII. In the late 40s to late 50s they built five large destroyers and converted six destroyers (two Tribals and four Q Class) for ASW. In the 1960s they built four frigates in two yards and in the 70s they built two frigates, with all other major combatants being built overseas.

This drawdown wasn't due to a lack of capacity or capability; it was due to a lack of funding to maintain fleet numbers, let alone to build ships efficiently. Point in case, the final pair of River Class, completed in the 70s, took longer to build than the preceding ships because the capability had already been drawn down.

No actual warships were built in Australia until the 80s, with two FFGs being started in the 80s and completed in the early 90s. These builds were drawn out and expensive because they were starting almost from scratch, but they set up Williamstown for the much more successful and efficient ANZAC build. Failing to learn from this lesson, we then built three FFGs (calling them DDGs) in a different new yard, then failed to maintain that capability and are now bitching about delays in the Hunter program, while aiming to build a different frigate in Perth, where we have never even built a corvette before.

It was never a lack of knowledge or skill that was the problem; it was a lack of funding and long-term planning. Just look at South Korea, Singapore and China, none of them were building modern warships in the 30s, 40's, 50's, 60s or 70s, look at them now. Australia was not only decades ahead of them, we also shut down and rebuilt our industry multiple times over the last 70 years, hell we were building cruisers in WWI, then shut it down in the 20s and bought ships from overseas, rebuilding our industry starting just before WWII.

Oh, when we rebuild the industry do you think they put the experienced techncial people from previous projects in charge? No, not a chance, the recruit non techncial project managers from other industries to tell the actual experienced experts how to suck eggs. Then, when it goes pair-shaped, they get consultants from overseas to come in instead of using local talent. The consultants though, do listen to the local experts; that's how they fix things.
 
My plan to keep the industry going in the 60s would be to build additional River Class and develop a DDG version of the Daring locally. Build the Rivers exclusively at Williamstown, twelve would be ideal to replace the WWII River and Bay Class, as well as the Tribal and Q conversions, but at least eight or ten. Ideally, all four Darings would have been built, providing six large modern destroyers, with a program of DDG versions, minimum six, preferably eight, built to supplement, then replace the earlier ships into the 70s.

At this point twenty to twenty-five years was considered to be a good service life for a warship.

Assuming our alt history starts in the 1st of January 1970, that changes things. The industry has already been gutted, CODOC and Williamstown are each building a River Class DE in slow time as the DDL is evolving from a gun armed sloop, maybe with a Seacat, into a helicopter-equipped frigate with Tartar/Standard, there are discussions on a collaborative build of a modified Type 21 due to the popularity of the various Vosper Thornycroft fast frigate exports in recent years.

There is a shortage of designers and draftsmen, more so than trades. This is in part due to the drawdown of shipbuilding, but also due in part to professionalisation, with the moves to restrict anyone who hasn't completed a four-year degree at a university from working as an engineer. This was devastating as many naval architects, designers, draftsmen, and technical specialists who had come up through trade, trained at institutes of technology, trained basically as engineering apprentices in what was called "pupillage".

Harmful but not insurmountable, for starters, just hook in to the Royal Institute of Naval Architects certification system assessing and certifying people as competent.

Assign the DDL to CODOC and Amazon to Williamstown, ordering four of each.
Order an additional four Amazons from Williamstown going into the early 80s and three to five modified, enlarged Vosper Thornicroft Harrier Carriers from CODOC being built from the late 70s into the mid 90s.

That's the ships laid down in the 70s, later examples would not be completed and commissioned until the 80s or 90s, but the first four Amazons and four DDLs should be done by the early 80s. They would have high levels of commonality, i.e. Olympus and Tyne GTs, Mk-45 5" gun, and many common subsystems. The Harrier Carriers would also have many common systems. This could justify local production of the GTs.

These ships would increase numbers and replace the last of the gun destroyers, as well as Sydney and Melbourne.

The program for the 80s would be six to eight Type 22 to replace the River Class, leading into a DDG and DDL replacement built at CODOC and an Amazon replacement kicked off in Williamstown in the 90s, completing in the 2000s, leading into the carrier and ASW frigate program in the 2010s. This would see a switch to Spey in place of Olympus.
 
I did a bit of a deep dive int shipbuilding recently, and as such I doubt Australia has a market big enough to sustain a solid shipbuilding industry that the RAN can readily tap into after the 60s or so. Despite its industrial might the US hasn't historically competitive shipbuilding nation, as soon as WW2 ended Britain overtook the US in shipbuilding. Japan and later Sth Korea and China invested heavily in the latest shipbuilding techniques and as such have huge shipbuilding industries. At best Australia could build a few ships for the Navy, ships for the Tasmania and other coastal and international routes for ANL and other ferries up to vehicle ferries.

Once the protectionist 'Bretton Woods' economic system changed to the more free trade 'globalisation' economic system the likes of Australia's shipbulding industry could only slip into niche roles and shrink to a size unable to sustain itself enough to be easily available for the RAN.

Sigh. :confused:
 
I did a bit of a deep dive int shipbuilding recently, and as such I doubt Australia has a market big enough to sustain a solid shipbuilding industry that the RAN can readily tap into after the 60s or so. Despite its industrial might the US hasn't historically competitive shipbuilding nation, as soon as WW2 ended Britain overtook the US in shipbuilding. Japan and later Sth Korea and China invested heavily in the latest shipbuilding techniques and as such have huge shipbuilding industries. At best Australia could build a few ships for the Navy, ships for the Tasmania and other coastal and international routes for ANL and other ferries up to vehicle ferries.

Once the protectionist 'Bretton Woods' economic system changed to the more free trade 'globalisation' economic system the likes of Australia's shipbulding industry could only slip into niche roles and shrink to a size unable to sustain itself enough to be easily available for the RAN.

Sigh. :confused:
It might contract down to 1-2 yards, but proper planning can let you keep the yard(s) busy. Build a class of DDs, build a class of FFs, build a class of sloops or OPVs, repeat. And sell off the old ships at ~20 years old.
 
It might contract down to 1-2 yards, but proper planning can let you keep the yard(s) busy. Build a class of DDs, build a class of FFs, build a class of sloops or OPVs, repeat. And sell off the old ships at ~20 years old.

It can be done in theory, but that means multiple Governments support the tail wagging the dog building ships regardless of which party is in power, what the defence policy is, the economic situation and whatever other things could impact on such a programme decade after decade.

Things were much easier when Australian yards were building a dozen or more large merchant ships a decade in the 50s, 60s and beyond, including seagoing Ro-Ro passenger Ferries for Tasmanian routes. Thus not every warship programme created a crisis.
 
It can be done in theory, but that means multiple Governments support the tail wagging the dog building ships regardless of which party is in power, what the defence policy is, the economic situation and whatever other things could impact on such a programme decade after decade.
It's a lot cheaper than rebuilding a competent naval shipyard every 30 years.
 
It can be done in theory, but that means multiple Governments support the tail wagging the dog building ships regardless of which party is in power, what the defence policy is, the economic situation and whatever other things could impact on such a programme decade after decade.

Things were much easier when Australian yards were building a dozen or more large merchant ships a decade in the 50s, 60s and beyond, including seagoing Ro-Ro passenger Ferries for Tasmanian routes. Thus not every warship programme created a crisis.
The fact is, every time the economic rationalists kill off industry, reality raises its head, and we need to build it back again, at much greater expense and lower value for money.

The true strategic value is not the ships or aircraft you have in service, but the infrastructure, including workforce, required to build and sustain what you need.

A bean counter can devolve to a point where they can prove that anything is not economically viable, affordable or efficient. This is often based on the assumption that they don't know how to do the required work, and as they consider themselves smarter and more important than engineers, technical and trades, that none of them could do the work correctly and efficiently.

When you switch to a more strategic view and accept that we will always return to building ships, we are a bloody island after all, the most efficient and effective option becomes building a sufficient number of good enough ships consistently. It doesn't need to be profitable, and if you require every capability to be profitable, society as a whole suffers because things that are needed are often not profitable.

Accepting that we will always build ships, even if it is one big project every twenty years, it rapidly becomes apparent that the most efficient and economical model is continuous building and regular regeneration of the fleet.

In trying to find a particular paper authored by Greg Tunny, I found these other papers.

 
I don' disagree that maintaining a shipbuilding industry (and a list of other industries as long as your arm) is good strategy, in fact it fits perfectly with the policy of Defence Self Reliance. However no government lasts long enough to get the benefit of doing such long term planning, or pay the costs of crippling shipbuilding, whereas they will often reap an electoral reward for doing things that damage such industries. I'm just being realistic about Governments and overall economic/industrial policies behind such things as shipbuilding. When we had a protected shipbuilding industry building ships for ANL as well as the Navy and other buyers things were easy, but that wasn't practical by the 80s and things become difficult.
 
I don' disagree that maintaining a shipbuilding industry (and a list of other industries as long as your arm) is good strategy, in fact it fits perfectly with the policy of Defence Self Reliance. However no government lasts long enough to get the benefit of doing such long term planning, or pay the costs of crippling shipbuilding, whereas they will often reap an electoral reward for doing things that damage such industries. I'm just being realistic about Governments and overall economic/industrial policies behind such things as shipbuilding. When we had a protected shipbuilding industry building ships for ANL as well as the Navy and other buyers things were easy, but that wasn't practical by the 80s and things become difficult.
That's when you'd need someone to remind the politicians how much it WILL cost to rebuild the systems.

See also: Bill Clinton reversing position and pushing forward SSN-23 as a bridge project till 774 class started, because of how expensive it would be to stop and restart work at EB.

Not to mention the taxes lost from a large chunk of highly paid workers you just laid off, and their probable anger at the party damaging chances of winning re-election for most of a generation.
 
I did a bit of a deep dive int shipbuilding recently, and as such I doubt Australia has a market big enough to sustain a solid shipbuilding industry that the RAN can readily tap into after the 60s or so.
Perhaps, the Australian government could use geopolitic dialogue to encompass NZ - a 'ANZAC frigate-like build a decade or two earlier. Or was Australia still too immature and subordinate to 'Britannia' and the Admiralty'.
Also, in terms of geopolitics and trade, perhaps Australia could encourage the likes of Malaysia, Thailand, to buy new-build patrol vessels and the likes from Australia. Sure, in the 1960/70's, they aren't likely to want, let alone afford the likes of frigates and destroyers. But it would keep Australian naval building facilities going......

At best Australia could build a few ships for the Navy, ships for the Tasmania and other coastal and international routes for ANL and other ferries up to vehicle ferries.
Again, refer above.

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
Patrol vessels for export would not be ideal, but they would keep shipwrights working in any gap times that OzGov wasn't ordering warships. Better to plan things out so that OzGov is always ordering something, but it'd work in a case of governmental stupidity.
 
Patrol vessels for export would not be ideal, but they would keep shipwrights working in any gap times that OzGov wasn't ordering warships. Better to plan things out so that OzGov is always ordering something, but it'd work in a case of governmental stupidity.
Its what we have done with the guardian and pacific patrol boat program as aid for other nations
 
Perhaps, the Australian government could use geopolitic dialogue to encompass NZ - a 'ANZAC frigate-like build a decade or two earlier. Or was Australia still too immature and subordinate to the 'Britannia' and the Admiralty'.
Also, in terms of geopolitics and trade, perhaps Australia could encourage the likes of Malaysia, Thailand, to buy new-build patrol vessels and the likes from Australia. Sure, in the 1960/70's, they aren't likely to want, let alone afford the likes of frigates and destroyers. But it would keep Australian naval building facilities going......
It has always confused me why from a logistical and alliance point that new zealand never brought australian built rivers instead of the british type 12Ms they got. If new zealand did decide to get rivers it would have kept williamstown and cockatoo busy through out the 60s with escort production
 
The biggest problem with shipbuilding in australia is not the shipbuilders but lack of government investment. Before its closure in the late 70s Whyalla Shipyard was producing the largest vessel ever built in Australia, in the 50,000 to 80,000 ton range depending on how you measure it. If the goverment had invested in Whyalla by ording some Container Ships, Bulk Carriers and Tankers for ANL which would probably increase the likely hood that companies like BHP would also keep ording ships. Not only would Australia still be building large commercial vessels keeping key experience in house we would have a strategic Independent modern merchant marine instead of relaying on other countries.
The same can said for state dockyard in Newcastle, if the state and federal government keep investing in it to build ferries for public transport, RoRo Vessels for long haul routes, Icebreakers for Antarctica and the odd naval contract. Australia would be in a most better strategic independent position.
Plus with this strong Commercial sector support by the government means the naval yards of Cockatoo, Williamstown and Carrington have a larger industry to go back to for support and workers for bigger projects like the AOE, DDL, LSM. This would probably also mean Australia would have enough skilled personal to start building small carriers and large amphibious warfare vessels as well
 
It has always confused me why from a logistical and alliance point that new zealand never brought australian built rivers instead of the british type 12Ms they got. If new zealand did decide to get rivers it would have kept williamstown and cockatoo busy through out the 60s with escort production
I think NZ idelogically held onto Britain's coattails longer and harder than Australia. I can't help but think it had a lot to do with emphasising loyalty to Britain, than actual common sense......

Regards
Pioneer
 
Last edited:
It would have made sense for NZ to have had closer ties with Australia. There were many discussions however cost always seemed to be the greatest factor.
 
It would have made sense for NZ to have had closer ties with Australia. There were many discussions however cost always seemed to be the greatest factor.

Yes, Australian built ships are more expensive that UK and US built ships.

In my old job I went to NZ to teach them about FMS to buy the P8 and C130J, they were worried about cost to a degree that Australia never does.
 
The biggest problem with shipbuilding in australia is not the shipbuilders but lack of government investment. Before its closure in the late 70s Whyalla Shipyard was producing the largest vessel ever built in Australia, in the 50,000 to 80,000 ton range depending on how you measure it. If the goverment had invested in Whyalla by ording some Container Ships, Bulk Carriers and Tankers for ANL which would probably increase the likely hood that companies like BHP would also keep ording ships. Not only would Australia still be building large commercial vessels keeping key experience in house we would have a strategic Independent modern merchant marine instead of relaying on other countries.
The same can said for state dockyard in Newcastle, if the state and federal government keep investing in it to build ferries for public transport, RoRo Vessels for long haul routes, Icebreakers for Antarctica and the odd naval contract. Australia would be in a most better strategic independent position.
Plus with this strong Commercial sector support by the government means the naval yards of Cockatoo, Williamstown and Carrington have a larger industry to go back to for support and workers for bigger projects like the AOE, DDL, LSM. This would probably also mean Australia would have enough skilled personal to start building small carriers and large amphibious warfare vessels as well

Sure, but this was the economic model of the postwar era, and this was changing by the late 70s due to things like stagflation. It's all well and good to have a long term strategic vision, but it has to deal with short term economic and political things that see such long-term projects are ATMs for the here and now. Look at US and UK shipbuilding, even they are struggling after decades of dominance and only China, Sth Korea and Japan having serious shipbuilding capacity to lean on with the generic 'Europe' building a reasonable number of niche ships like Cruise liners. The march of history is against Australia having a good shipbuilding industry to lean on.
 
Could the 7th and 8th Oberon subs have been built n Australia?
I would say so, it would have to be a cockatoo island as they have the experience maintaining subs. I think it wpuld make more sense to have batch 1 built in the uk and batch 2 in australia
 
Yes, Australian built ships are more expensive that UK and US built ships.

In my old job I went to NZ to teach them about FMS to buy the P8 and C130J, they were worried about cost to a degree that Australia never does.
I am on the technical side of things and the commercial shits me to tears. Over the years I have learnt to sell capability and risk in terms of cost and schedule, as well as cost of quality.

We can't afford that preliminary testing, any issues will be found later, and the principal engineer says we won't have a problem. This gets reframed as if there is an issue, this will become the critical path and the project will blow out by 24 to 36 months. All of a suddenly the testing is scheduled, and long lead items are procured.

This new capability is too expensive to procure, becomes, this new capability will reduce the cost of ownership, make currently unrepairable items repairable and cut lead times for replacement components by over a year.

PMs and PDs supported by yes-men engineers, looking down swim lanes and refusing to think strategically or look at the big picture, cost the taxpayer a ridiculous amount of money. Let the smart experienced techos and hands on egineers and designers work out the best way forward, get out of their way, and projects will be much better off.
 
Could the 7th and 8th Oberon subs have been built n Australia?
That's a tremendous amount of $$$, infustructure and resources for just two submarines.
If Australia was serious about building submarines, I would expect/want it to be the whole shebang. The Oberon's being the sub selected, I would push as hard politically and militaraly to have RAN and leading Australian contractors embedded in the build of the first two RAN's Oberon's in Britain. With the remaining six subs built in Australia. Pushing the British government and Admiralty that by doing so facilitated strategic submarine basing and repair facilities in the South Pacific for RN Oberon's.....
In doing so, the later Collins class sub build would be a more sensible and streamlined process.....


Regards
Pioneer
 
That's a tremendous amount of $$$, infustructure and resources for just two submarines.
If Australia was serious about building submarines, I would expect/want it to be the whole shebang. The Oberon's being the sub selected, I would push as hard politically and militaraly to have RAN and leading Australian contractors embedded in the build of the first two RAN's Oberon's in Britain. With the remaining six subs built in Australia. Pushing the British government and Admiralty that by doing so facilitated strategic submarine basing and repair facilities in the South Pacific for RN Oberon's.....
In doing so, the later Collins class sub build would be a more sensible and streamlined process.....


Regards
Pioneer

Oberons couldn't be built in the yards that just built the last 2 Rivers, during the peak of Australia's shipbuilding capacity?
 
Back
Top Bottom