Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[Rule of cool]

My God, you could replace Australia with Canada . It's just unreal.

I think the main difference is that Australia was involved in shooting wars in the region for about a decade in the 60s, so we had motivation to do some things for a while.

 

[GK. Dundas]

The delaying contract talks until the manufacturer stops building what ever you want to buy how ever is something we've done more then a couple of times..
And the fear of bad headlines has done some interesting things to Canadian defence policy and spending.

 

[Aussie Alfred]

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_30_Part2-1968-May-Jun-Jul-1968.pdf

There are a few articles in the navy league proposing converting the the type 15s and the Battle class into helicopter destroyers. One of the links above on page 25. There are several other Articles and proposals some including Ikara.

The hull life of the type 15s makes them not really viable for conversion. HMAS Tobruk was never properly repaired so that only leaves HMAS Anzac unless Tobruk is repaired

The Darings were pretty much obsolete. If they were converted to DDH’s with 1or 2 Wessex or a Seaking, Ikara, SeaCat, Mk32 Torpedo Tubes along the lines of the Battle Class and Type 15 conversions proposed they would have been far more useful to the RAN. We even had the Wessex helicopters available.

If these conversions had proven successful and a decision was made to expand the RAN we could have purchased more second hand from the UK. Or possibly built a super Daring as I think someone has previously proposed.

The conversion of 2 Battles and 3 Darings along these lines could put 5 Seakings or possibly 10 Wessex at Sea.

Another advantage of this proposal could be the replacement of some or all ASW helicopters on HMAS Melbourne with additional Trackers or Skyhawks.

There were plans to equip the Darings with Tarter missiles but with the introduction of the Charles F Adams this may have been a better option particularly if the 4th CFA had been ordered

There are several other links I can post if anyone is interested

 

[Pioneer]

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_30_Part2-1968-May-Jun-Jul-1968.pdf

There are a few articles in the navy league proposing converting the the type 15s and the Battle class into helicopter destroyers. One of the links above on page 25. There are several other Articles and proposals some including Ikara.

The hull life of the type 15s makes them not really viable for conversion. HMAS Tobruk was never properly repaired so that only leaves HMAS Anzac unless Tobruk is repaired

The Darings were pretty much obsolete. If they were converted to DDH’s with 1or 2 Wessex or a Seaking, Ikara, SeaCat, Mk32 Torpedo Tubes along the lines of the Battle Class and Type 15 conversions proposed they would have been far more useful to the RAN. We even had the Wessex helicopters available.

If these conversions had proven successful and a decision was made to expand the RAN we could have purchased more second hand from the UK. Or possibly built a super Daring as I think someone has previously proposed.

The conversion of 2 Battles and 3 Darings along these lines could put 5 Seakings or possibly 10 Wessex at Sea.

Another advantage of this proposal could be the replacement of some or all ASW helicopters on HMAS Melbourne with additional Trackers or Skyhawks.

There were plans to equip the Darings with Tarter missiles but with the introduction of the Charles F Adams this may have been a better option particularly if the 4th CFA had been ordered

There are several other links I can post if anyone is interested

Thanks for the link Aussie Alfred.
Those artist impressions would look great as profiles, by someone who does Shipbucket!
Wow, The Navy magazine for 15c.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Volkodav]

Disagree, the OHP hull extension was only a couple million (if that) per hull.

I can't put my hands on the reference, I can't even recall exactly where or when I read it, but the cost of modifying the first three FFGs (Darwin was built with the extended heli deck) and acquiring the 16 SH-60B Seahawks, was more expensive than buying Hermes and 16 Lynx, or buying something like Ocean and Lynx.

The RAN SH-60B was the second most expensive (A$32m each in 1990) aviation platform the ADF had operated up to that point, the P-3C (A$40m each) being the most Expensive. It was a bespoke version that had to fill, not just the shipboard ASW helo role, it had to replace Sea King, Tracker and Ikara.

The carrier would have operated the in-service Sea Kings for ASW and potentially the Wessex in the SAR and utility roles, combined with the Lynx and its Skua missiles, would have provided the RAN with vastly greater capability. In fact, acquiring Hermes would have given Australia breathing space to develop requirements for a carrier replacement during the late 90s that could have also covered the amphibious role, i.e. a pair of Oceans, San Giorgios, Osumis, or even Chakri Naruebets instead of the Newports and then LHDs.

 

[Rule of cool]

I can't put my hands on the reference, I can't even recall exactly where or when I read it, but the cost of modifying the first three FFGs (Darwin was built with the extended heli deck) and acquiring the 16 SH-60B Seahawks, was more expensive than buying Hermes and 16 Lynx, or buying something like Ocean and Lynx.

The RAN SH-60B was the second most expensive (A$32m each in 1990) aviation platform the ADF had operated up to that point, the P-3C (A$40m each) being the most Expensive. It was a bespoke version that had to fill, not just the shipboard ASW helo role, it had to replace Sea King, Tracker and Ikara.

The carrier would have operated the in-service Sea Kings for ASW and potentially the Wessex in the SAR and utility roles, combined with the Lynx and its Skua missiles, would have provided the RAN with vastly greater capability. In fact, acquiring Hermes would have given Australia breathing space to develop requirements for a carrier replacement during the late 90s that could have also covered the amphibious role, i.e. a pair of Oceans, San Giorgios, Osumis, or even Chakri Naruebets instead of the Newports and then LHDs.

Even a decade ago the MH60R was about the same price as the F/A18F.

 

[GK. Dundas]

I think the main difference is that Australia was involved in shooting wars in the region for about a decade in the 60s, so we had motivation to do some things for a while.

The reason I say this is because the reason why we flew Boeing 707s for roughly 20 years as a transport and later as a tanker.
Is we dithered while negotiating for C141s .
Until they stopped building them .

 

[Volkodav]

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_30_Part2-1968-May-Jun-Jul-1968.pdf

There are a few articles in the navy league proposing converting the the type 15s and the Battle class into helicopter destroyers. One of the links above on page 25. There are several other Articles and proposals some including Ikara.

The hull life of the type 15s makes them not really viable for conversion. HMAS Tobruk was never properly repaired so that only leaves HMAS Anzac unless Tobruk is repaired

The Darings were pretty much obsolete. If they were converted to DDH’s with 1or 2 Wessex or a Seaking, Ikara, SeaCat, Mk32 Torpedo Tubes along the lines of the Battle Class and Type 15 conversions proposed they would have been far more useful to the RAN. We even had the Wessex helicopters available.

If these conversions had proven successful and a decision was made to expand the RAN we could have purchased more second hand from the UK. Or possibly built a super Daring as I think someone has previously proposed.

The conversion of 2 Battles and 3 Darings along these lines could put 5 Seakings or possibly 10 Wessex at Sea.

Another advantage of this proposal could be the replacement of some or all ASW helicopters on HMAS Melbourne with additional Trackers or Skyhawks.

There were plans to equip the Darings with Tarter missiles but with the introduction of the Charles F Adams this may have been a better option particularly if the 4th CFA had been ordered

There are several other links I can post if anyone is interested

Please do post the links. I am very interested in the thinking of the past.

The UK developed an upgrade proposal for the Daring that basically made them flush-decked, removed the aft gun turret, and turned them into fast ASW destroyers. They were nice, but the RN rightly determined they would be better off building additional Leanders.

There were other proposals for Tartar conversions for both the Battles and the Darings in RN service, with Australia showing interest (Brown even suggested the investigations were at Australia's instigation).

The older I become, the less enamoured I am with upgrades, especially radical rebuilds of existing platforms. The exception is regarding platforms explicitly designed for, but not with, particular systems, or with modular systems intended to be removed, replaced and swapped out with upgraded or alternate systems.

Options such as replacing Twin Bofors with Seacat, and Limbo with Ikara, for instance, are very sensible. As are helicopter conversions of even older frigates etc. as they not only increase capability at lower initial cost, in a shorter time frame, they provide pipelines for training and upskilling service personnel, and developing operational concepts, prior to the introduction of new platforms.

That said, a Helo conversion of the Qs could have merit; Sea King would be too great a stretch, but Wessex may be doable, and Wasp would be fairly straightforward.

A common Tartar conversion of the Battles and Darings could be made viable by adopting the smaller, lighter Mk-22 GMLS (16 rounds), inserting it in place of B turret and designing a new bridge / CIC etc structure and supressing the torpedoes in favour of additional superstructure for new and displaced systems as well as additional diesel generators. Additional work could include replacing Limbo with Ikara and fitting Mk-32 triple ASW torpedo launchers.

 

[Pioneer]

Please do post the links. I am very interested in the thinking of the past.

The UK developed an upgrade proposal for the Daring that basically made them flush-decked, removed the aft gun turret, and turned them into fast ASW destroyers. They were nice, but the RN rightly determined they would be better off building additional Leanders.

There were other proposals for Tartar conversions for both the Battles and the Darings in RN service, with Australia showing interest (Brown even suggested the investigations were at Australia's instigation).

The older I become, the less enamoured I am with upgrades, especially radical rebuilds of existing platforms. The exception is regarding platforms explicitly designed for, but not with, particular systems, or with modular systems intended to be removed, replaced and swapped out with upgraded or alternate systems.

Options such as replacing Twin Bofors with Seacat, and Limbo with Ikara, for instance, are very sensible. As are helicopter conversions of even older frigates etc. as they not only increase capability at lower initial cost, in a shorter time frame, they provide pipelines for training and upskilling service personnel, and developing operational concepts, prior to the introduction of new platforms.

That said, a Helo conversion of the Qs could have merit; Sea King would be too great a stretch, but Wessex may be doable, and Wasp would be fairly straightforward.

A common Tartar conversion of the Battles and Darings could be made viable by adopting the smaller, lighter Mk-22 GMLS (16 rounds), inserting it in place of B turret and designing a new bridge / CIC etc structure and supressing the torpedoes in favour of additional superstructure for new and displaced systems as well as additional diesel generators. Additional work could include replacing Limbo with Ikara and fitting Mk-32 triple ASW torpedo launchers.

I too have come to a similar conclusion, as I get older Volkodav.
Regarding your analogy about Helo conversion of existing frigates/destroyers, I think this only became operationally and cost efficient with the advent of the Kaman SH-2D Seasprite, and of course, the Westland Lynx HAS.2.

With my previous notion of more joint-programs by the Australian government/ADF, perhaps Australia might have been wised to have worked in with the Royal Canadian Navy to develop the 1960 Kaman HU2K-1 ASW helicopter program......?

(I fully appreciate that the fundamental issue with the HU2K-1 ASW helicopter program was that of weight and the single-engine configuration of the then HU2K-1. But the fact was, Australia was no slouch at the time when it came to ASW sensor R&D, and as such, might have brought new perspectives and answers to the program.......)
This way, the RAN (and RCN) get a smaller, lighter and cheaper ASW helicopter than that of the larger, heavier and more expensive Wessex and Sea King. Which would make such conversions of existing frigates/destroyers more achievable.....

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

The older I become, the less enamoured I am with upgrades, especially radical rebuilds of existing platforms.

I too have come to a similar conclusion, as I get older Volkodav.

Me 3.

It costs a fortune, takes forever, often fails. It rarely is worth the money and effort for run of the mill stuff, although something like the HMAS Melbourne is special.

These days my preference is most the most vanilla stuff possible.

 

[Aussie Alfred]

@ Volkodav 3 articles on destroyer conversions and an article on never were’s.
Also an article on the Surveillance and Army Support Ship proposal from Caringtons based on Tobruk. If we couldn’t have a Melbourne replacement they proposed up to 5. I remember seeing other articles at the time equipping them with 6-10 Seakings and a couple with Harriers. They could have been quite handy and stopped the disaster that came with Kanimbla and Manoora.


The first 3 are articles about converting type 15s and Battle class destroyers to carry helicopters

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_30_Part3-1968-Aug-Sep-Oct-1968.pdf

Page 73

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/1969-70-Vol_31_Part1_Part1.pdf

Page 75

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_31_Part2-1969-May-Jun-Jul-1969.pdf

Page 15


https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_45_Part2-1983-Jul-and-Oct-1983.pdf

RAN never weres page 4
LPH Carrier
DDL
LSM
Fast combat support ship

Surveillance and Army support ship page 41

 

[Aussie Alfred]

The RAN small general purpose escort proposed in the 60s. From what I can gather they were to fulfill the light escort and patrol role that the Attack class filled. They would definitely have been more useful. The design evolved into the DDL

https://navyleague.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/The-Navy-Vol_57_Part2-1995-Jul-and-Oct-1995.pdf

Page 5

 

[Volkodav]

Instead of after Vietnam & Gough Whitlam election the ADF didn't get a bunch of different procurement projects cancelled on them and went ahead with the ones they had planned?
Royal Australian Navy

• HMS Hermes is acquired becoming HMAS Australia (More A-4G's & S-2Gs acquired to fill out air wing & Possibly E-1B Tracers?)
• Landing Ship Medium Mark II Project isn't cancelled (How many would get built?)
• 7-10x DDL Project isn't canceled (Replacing the Daring Class Destroyers & River Class DE's)
• 5x GP Escort Project (Australianised Type 21 with 5inch gun & Sea Sparrow)
• Last 2 Oberon Class Submarines not cancelled bring Submarines Total from 6 to 8
• HMAS Protector AOE isn't canceled (Would a 2nd ship be built to replace HMAS Supply?)
• 30x Fremantle Class PB's (16x RAN, 10x PNG & 4x RANR)
• Super Frelon instead of Sea Kings
• Westland Lynx for GP Escort & DDL

Royal Australian Air Force

• 127x Saab-37AU Viggens replacing Mirage IIIO from 1976
• 44x UH-1H Iroquois
• 12x CH-47C Chinooks
• 11x AH-1G Cobras

Australian Army

• 84x OH-58A Kiowa

How would this affect the ADF going into the future, and are there any other projects that got canceled?
Eg:

• When would and by what would the Viggens get replaced?
• How would the big helicopter order effect future procurements? Eg: would the Blackhawk & Seahawk order go ahead in the 80's?
• In this Scenario would HMAS Melbourne become a Fast Troop Transport/Commando Carrier to replace HMAS Sydney or get decommissioned and scrapped?
• How would this effect Indonesia's invasion of East Timor?

Going back to the start I have had some thoughts on this.

INS Vikrant operated Alize and Sea Harrier concurrently between 1983 and 87. This provides a viable option for the RAN, i.e. continue flying Tracker alongside Sea Harrier and maybe acquire surplus USN Tracers. I could be wrong, but I believe Tracker had fewer challenges operating from smaller carriers than the Skyhawks did.

I am not sure what condition HMCS Bonaventure was in when retired, but she could have been an option for Australia to return to a two carrier fleet with her and Melbourne being upgraded to an identical new standard.

Hermes would have been a very nice acquisition when offered in 1968 and potentially could have served the RAN very well.

On surface combatants I have some other thoughts.

DDL outgrew its initial intent as a supplement to the destroyer and frigate squadrons but was rightly regarded as a superior design to both the OHP and Type 42 Batch 1. I would delay and improve it to become a replacement for the Darings and, later the Adams class destroyers, with six to eight hulls built in batches into the 90s. The ideal would be four batches of two built every five years in a constant iterative improvement, from the late 70s, as Japan, Italy and France, tend to do.

Concurrently I would build eight hybrid Type 22 Batch 2/3 to replace the River Class in the ASW role from the early 80s.

Also, eight to twelve improved Type 21 as described in Browns Rebuilding the Royal Navy (similar to what you mentioned). This would be a continuous build to increase the size of the fleet and provide new hulls that could also replace the ships used for training, including reserves.

More to follow.

 

[Scott Kenny]

[...]

• Super Frelon instead of Sea Kings
• Westland Lynx for GP Escort & DDL

Royal Australian Air Force

• 127x Saab-37AU Viggens replacing Mirage IIIO from 1976
• 44x UH-1H Iroquois
• 12x CH-47C Chinooks
• 11x AH-1G Cobras

Australian Army

• 84x OH-58A Kiowa

How would this affect the ADF going into the future, and are there any other projects that got canceled?
Eg:

• When would and by what would the Viggens get replaced?
• How would the big helicopter order effect future procurements? Eg: would the Blackhawk & Seahawk order go ahead in the 80's?

Buying Viggens in the mid 70s means you're looking at the mid 90s to mid 00s for a replacement. I suspect you'd be looking at Hornets to replace them. Maybe Super Hornets. Mostly because I can't see Oz paying for Strike Eagles or Typhoons. Maybe, just maybe, they would consider Gripens.

IIRC most of the helicopters were US leftovers from Vietnam (Hueys and Cobras definitely were), which would need to be replaced a lot sooner than I think Oz expected. It wouldn't necessarily have to be Blackhawks to replace the Hueys, Hueys were still in production in the 80s and I suspect that Oz would be interested in the Twin Hueys with the USMC salt-corrosion coatings. IF Oz went with Twin Hueys, I'd expect them to also go with Sea Cobras to match. Small fleets really feel the Logistics.

Chinooks would likely get remanufactured or replaced with new airframes outright, as the competitor to a Chinook is an H-53.

I think the Seahawk order would still happen in the 80s with delivery in the 90s, as the Seahawks can replace both Lynx and Super Frelon/Sea Kings.

IIRC the Kiowas were purchased new, so would not need to be replaced until the mid 1990s to early 00s. And frankly they could be replaced by more Kiowas.

 

[Apophenia]

...
I am not sure what condition HMCS Bonaventure was in when retired, but she could have been an option for Australia to return to a two carrier fleet with her and Melbourne being upgraded to an identical new standard...

More to follow.

HMCS Bonaventure was in good shape when retired - having fairly recently completed her 1966-67 modernisation programme. That MLU went CAD 17M over budget (or ~2026 CAD 152M) which the GoC used to justify paying off the carrier in July 1970. At the time, it was estimated that the 'Bonnie' had another decade of service in her.

Then there is the bad news. Like small dogs, Canadian governments have a habit of kicking cover over their poo. The P.E. Trudeau government was no more likely to sell the Bonaventure than the earlier Diefenbaker government was to sell off cancelled CF-105s. There may have been media criticism for scrapping the 'Bonnie' in Taiwan but imagine the political blowback if Australia still had her in service in 1980?

 

[Volkodav]

HMCS Bonaventure was in good shape when retired - having fairly recently completed her 1966-67 modernisation programme. That MLU went CAD 17M over budget (or ~2026 CAD 152M) which the GoC used to justify paying off the carrier in July 1970. At the time, it was estimated that the 'Bonnie' had another decade of service in her.

Then there is the bad news. Like small dogs, Canadian governments have a habit of kicking cover over their poo. The P.E. Trudeau government was no more likely to sell the Bonaventure than the earlier Diefenbaker government was to sell off cancelled CF-105s. There may have been media criticism for scrapping the 'Bonnie' in Taiwan but imagine the political blowback if Australia still had her in service in 1980?

A second, or even better a third, carrier would have extended the life of the capability in the RAN as they tend to use their gear to destruction and having additional hulls would have ensured respite for upkeep and upgrade, if not the actual maintenance.

An old and bold birdie (RAN FAA CPO) told me in the mid/late 80s, that the plan in the late 60s to mid 70s had been to acquire a second and hopefully a third carrier, as dictated by the Two Ocean Navy Policy. I only have verbal on this and haven't found any reference in my occasional archive dives, but it fits the reality of the situation.

The thing politicians don't understand is spending more up front on acquisition and sustainment often delivers better value for money and bang for your buck. Skimping means you are chasing your tail trying to deliver capability that has not been underpinned by planning and infrastructure.

 

[Rule of cool]

The thing politicians don't understand is spending more up front on acquisition and sustainment often delivers better value for money and bang for your buck.

They understand, they don't care, or understand that scrimping on a defence procurement is more popular with the voters that getting good long term value.

 

[GK. Dundas]

HMCS Bonaventure was in good shape when retired - having fairly recently completed her 1966-67 modernisation programme. That MLU went CAD 17M over budget (or ~2026 CAD 152M) which the GoC used to justify paying off the carrier in July 1970. At the time, it was estimated that the 'Bonnie' had another decade of service in her.

Then there is the bad news. Like small dogs, Canadian governments have a habit of kicking cover over their poo. The P.E. Trudeau government was no more likely to sell the Bonaventure than the earlier Diefenbaker government was to sell off cancelled CF-105s. There may have been media criticism for scrapping the 'Bonnie' in Taiwan but imagine the political blowback if Australia still had her in service in 1980?

There were several narratives at play as well .
The Carrier was obsolete everybody's getting rid of them ....with the exception of the Americans, the Soviets , the Spanish , the Thais and various sundry Latin American nations...Don't Look!
Bonaventure was completely and totally worn out ,a couple of years after an incredibly expensive and almost total rebuild....I thought I told you not to look?
I think that they may have reused my favorite piece of bafflegab used on a couple occasions as to why some piece of hardware or a capability was being dropped.
" Not useful in the Canadian context of the situation at hand "

 

[Rule of cool]

I think by the 70s the Melbourne's fate was locked in by the decisions/actions of the 60s or even the 50s. By the 70s all eyes were fixed on replacing her, not extending her already over-used life and rightly so.