RAN 50's and 60's missile conversions

[Rule of cool]

IIUC The Daring-Terrier plan was in 1961, then in 1964 the Daring plan was changed to Ikara and Sea Cat then in 1969 this was cancelled due to costs, and the Darings were kept as gun destroyers.

Personally, I think the Tartar plan was ambitious to the point of ludicrous and the RAN should have looked at Darings with Ikara in 1961, that likely would have been started rather than an 8-year waste of time for no outcome.

How would an Ikara-Seacat Daring have fared off Vietnam?

 

[Dilandu]

I've been thinking if Hobart gets refitted in 56 and takes 4 years so finished in 60 and then say Tobruk goes into refit and takes 2 (optimistic i would think). That would mean in 62 Australia would have a CLG and DDG in time for the west new guinea conflict. Say Australia backs Netherlanders in would the sea venoms, plus the terrier and tartar, plus Netherlands sea hawk be enough to counter Indonesia tu 16s and their anti ship missiles

Early Tartars were next thing to unworkable. I kinda doubt you would like to rely on missile, that have less than 30% sucsessfull launch rate. And which fire control radar is not designed for sea conditions.

 

[Caryina2642]

IIUC The Daring-Terrier plan was in 1961, then in 1964 the Daring plan was changed to Ikara and Sea Cat then in 1969 this was cancelled due to costs, and the Darings were kept as gun destroyers.

Personally, I think the Tartar plan was ambitious to the point of ludicrous and the RAN should have looked at Darings with Ikara in 1961, that likely would have been started rather than an 8-year waste of time for no outcome.

How would an Ikara-Seacat Daring have fared off Vietnam?

I dont think the terrier could fit on the daring would be too small. I've seen a tartar-ikara plan than the secat-ikara plan
It would have fared fine in vietnam

 

[Caryina2642]

Early Tartars were next thing to unworkable. I kinda doubt you would like to rely on missile, that have less than 30% sucsessfull launch rate. And which fire control radar is not designed for sea conditions.

How early are talking?, cause by 62 they were in service for 4 years

 

[Rule of cool]

The Tartar was a complex system of search, target indication, and illumination radars, as well as associated computers and consoles. Just because the launcher can fit doesn't mean all the other stuff can. I think in that sense the Ikara and Sea Cat would be much simpler t retrofit into the Darings.

 

[Caryina2642]

The Tartar was a complex system of search, target indication, and illumination radars, as well as associated computers and consoles. Just because the launcher can fit doesn't mean all the other stuff can. I think in that sense the Ikara and Sea Cat would be much simpler t retrofit into the Darings.

That is true but tartar was fitted to destroyers of similar size and displacement as the darings, eg French T47 class
Simpler yes but less capable

 

[Rule of cool]

That is true but tartar was fitted to destroyers of similar size and displacement as the darings, eg French T47 class
Simpler yes but less capable

Sure, but I think Tarter would be best placed into new ships designed with it in mind in order to get the best results. Not getting the 4th DDG is a real loss in my mind.

Given the lack of experience with major rebuilds that installing a missile system into a gun destroyer would entail I think going the simplest route would be the most likely to yield a positive result. It might even be better if the RAN abandoned fitting any missiles to Darings in 1964 and just accepted that it would be a gun destroyer class and cut short their lives by a few years. That wouldn't be so bad if the RAN got a 4th DDG.

 

[Caryina2642]

Sure, but I think Tarter would be best placed into new ships designed with it in mind in order to get the best results. Not getting the 4th DDG is a real loss in my mind.

Given the lack of experience with major rebuilds that installing a missile system into a gun destroyer would entail I think going the simplest route would be the most likely to yield a positive result. It might even be better if the RAN abandoned fitting any missiles to Darings in 1964 and just accepted that it would be a gun destroyer class and cut short their lives by a few years. That wouldn't be so bad if the RAN got a 4th DDG.

Get what your saying and what happened in real life i agree 100%. But in a world where Australian shipyards crunch there teeth in the conversions of Hobart and the 2 battles this would mean bye the time for the darings turn the yards would have the experienced need to preform the Tartar and ikara conversion. Plus it would probably give australian shipyards the experience to build the ddgs in Australia weather an evolved daring design, modified county or the perths

 

[Dilandu]

But in a world where Australian shipyards crunch there teeth in the conversions of Hobart and the 2 battles this would mean bye the time for the darings turn the yards

I rather doubt that Australian shipyards are up to the task. Australia wasn't exactly Italy in terms of industrial and tachnological capabilities. More likely ships would be sent to USA for refit.

 

[Caryina2642]

I rather doubt that Australian shipyards are up to the task. Australia wasn't exactly Italy in terms of industrial and tachnological capabilities. More likely ships would be sent to USA for refit.

I think with Australia it's more the shipyard unions that held us back by the 50s and 60s we were as industrialised as the rest as the western world. We built everything ourselves during this period

 

[Dilandu]

I think with Australia it's more the shipyard unions that held us back by the 50s and 60s we were as industrialised as the rest as the western world. We built everything ourselves during this period

To put it simply - no. You have tech level, but neither experience, nor capabilities. Its especially important for refits, where the existing hardware must be adopted to operate with new one, that was neither intended nor supposed to be compatible. Especially the hardware that is significantly over the Australian capabilities, like SAM's.

If such refit would be commensed on domestic Australian shipyards, it would likely took 6-8 years per ship. Maybe more. Look, it took four years for Italians to refit Garibaldi, and Italian shipbuilding was two orders of magnitude more capable and more experienced than Australian.

Recall how long it took for Australia to build Daring-class destroyers - 7-8 years on average - and you would see that trying to refit the fleet using domestic capabilities is just impractical. Especially considering that every major component would need to be imported, and any kind of unforeseen problem would cause communication & logistic issues with Americans. Who, I should point, may not be eager to participate in domestic refit program at all; their cut would be significantly smaller, than from refit on US shipyards.

 

[Caryina2642]

To put it simply - no. You have tech level, but neither experience, nor capabilities. Its especially important for refits, where the existing hardware must be adopted to operate with new one, that was neither intended nor supposed to be compatible. Especially the hardware that is significantly over the Australian capabilities, like SAM's.

If such refit would be commensed on domestic Australian shipyards, it would likely took 6-8 years per ship. Maybe more. Look, it took four years for Italians to refit Garibaldi, and Italian shipbuilding was two orders of magnitude more capable and more experienced than Australian.

Recall how long it took for Australia to build Daring-class destroyers - 7-8 years on average - and you would see that trying to refit the fleet using domestic capabilities is just impractical. Especially considering that every major component would need to be imported, and any kind of unforeseen problem would cause communication & logistic issues with Americans. Who, I should point, may not be eager to participate in domestic refit program at all; their cut would be significantly smaller, than from refit on US shipyards.

To get the experience in something you have to do that thing its the only way. You can bring all the experts in but till you do it you don't have the experience. I hate the notion that Australia can't do this or do that. Yes it might take a year or two longer for the first unit, but once we understand something we are able to build stuff fast enough
The battles were on time and the first two darings from laid down to launch were on time. The problem from what I read was the unions.
Which were a big problem in both Melbourne and Sydney in the shipbuilding industry here.
Thats why in the 80s the Collins were selected to be built in Adelaide cause they didn't have as strong unions.

 

[uk 75]

The Australian Adams class ships were a better bet if money was available for more SAGW platforms with Tartar.
Ikara works as an upgrade similar to the fits on Australian destroyers and frigates but again extra new build ships seem better.
Terrier or Seaslug offer the sort of conversion done with European cruisers (Garibaldi, De Z Provincien, Colbert) and the resulting cruiser could also be given flag command spaces like Little Rock.

 

[Dilandu]

To get the experience in something you have to do that thing its the only way. You can bring all the experts in but till you do it you don't have the experience.

Yes, but it NOT recommended to rely on your inexperienced capabilities for something that is vital or costly.

I hate the notion that Australia can't do this or do that.

There is a difference between "couldn't" and "shouldn't". Could Australia perform such modernization? Potentially yes. Should it bother, if sending ships to USA would be faster and cheaper? Likely no.

Yes it might take a year or two longer for the first unit, but once we understand something we are able to build stuff fast enough

Problem is, that the whole idea of refit is to utilize the existing capabilities in fastest & cheapest way. Trying to handle such refit themselves would achieve neither; it won't be cheap or fast, and the goal of the refit would be basically lost. Ordering new ships would be more efficient at this point.

 

[Dilandu]

Terrier or Seaslug offer the sort of conversion done with European cruisers (Garibaldi, De Z Provincien, Colbert) and the resulting cruiser could also be given flag command spaces like Little Rock.

True, that's why I consider sending Hobart to USA for a missile refit to be a resonable idea for mid-1950s. But trying to handle such complex refit in Australia spells a way to disaster.

 

[Caryina2642]

The Australian Adams class ships were a better bet if money was available for more SAGW platforms with Tartar.
Ikara works as an upgrade similar to the fits on Australian destroyers and frigates but again extra new build ships seem better.
Terrier or Seaslug offer the sort of conversion done with European cruisers (Garibaldi, De Z Provincien, Colbert) and the resulting cruiser could also be given flag command spaces like Little Rock.

I would get the Adams class or a modified county class for the Tribal class replacement cause theres no point modernization point

Yes, but it NOT recommended to rely on your inexperienced capabilities for something that is vital or costly.


There is a difference between "couldn't" and "shouldn't". Could Australia perform such modernization? Potentially yes. Should it bother, if sending ships to USA would be faster and cheaper? Likely no.


Problem is, that the whole idea of refit is to utilize the existing capabilities in fastest & cheapest way. Trying to handle such refit themselves would achieve neither; it won't be cheap or fast, and the goal of the refit would be basically lost. Ordering new ships would be more efficient at this point.

True, that's why I consider sending Hobart to USA for a missile refit to be a resonable idea for mid-1950s. But trying to handle such complex refit in Australia spells a way to disaster.

Sure you could send it to the us for cheaper but is the us going to refit it when its refitting its own ships
TH\he reason i want australia to to is

1. it gives australian shipyards an opportunity to work with these new modern systems, sure we might need to bring in expertise from the us to help guide us
2. Once the shipyards brake there teeth on these conversions and gained experience and know how, it would give the government more confidence in australian yards that they can build these modern systems, which in turn could lead to the goverment being more confident in the yards to build these modern ships. Meaning australian yards could build DDG's such as the DDL project in the 70s instead of waiting to the 2010's with the Hobarts

 

[Dilandu]

I would get the Adams class or a modified county class for the Tribal class replacement cause theres no point modernization point

The suggested modernization of Hobart & old destroyers would certainly kill any attempt to obtain Adams-class. There simply won't be money for that - and no much pressure. So major refit program = no Adams-class for Australia.

1. it gives australian shipyards an opportunity to work with these new modern systems, sure we might need to bring in expertise from the us to help guide us
2. Once the shipyards brake there teeth on these conversions and gained experience and know how, it would give the government more confidence in australian yards that they can build these modern systems, which in turn could lead to the goverment being more confident in the yards to build these modern ships. Meaning australian yards could build DDG's such as the DDL project in the 70s instead of waiting to the 2010's with the Hobarts

Problem is, Australian shipyards already failed the Daring-class building program in both time, cost & volume. The givernment simply can't rely on them. What if they fail the refit efforts too? Then RAN would be in dire situation, having nothing mkdern to field.

See, you are looking on the situation through only long-term goals. Yes, from that position giving Australian shipyards additional experience would be good. But there are short-term goals also: RAN need combat-capable warships. And from this position, giving Australian shipyards another risky program fo fail seems just too dangerous.

 

[Dilandu]

Sure you could send it to the us for cheaper but is the us going to refit it when its refitting its own ships

Let me suggest a compromise; the bulk of the ships got refitted in USA, and one ship would be refitted by Australian shipyards. That way both the Navy would be satisfied, and shipyards would gain some experience.

 

[Caryina2642]

The suggested modernization of Hobart & old destroyers would certainly kill any attempt to obtain Adams-class. There simply won't be money for that - and no much pressure. So major refit program = no Adams-class for Australia.


Problem is, Australian shipyards already failed the Daring-class building program in both time, cost & volume. The givernment simply can't rely on them. What if they fail the refit efforts too? Then RAN would be in dire situation, having nothing mkdern to field.

See, you are looking on the situation through only long-term goals. Yes, from that position giving Australian shipyards additional experience would be good. But there are short-term goals also: RAN need combat-capable warships. And from this position, giving Australian shipyards another risky program fo fail seems just too dangerous.

I don't think it would kill any attempt to obtain the adams class, cause in this scenario all 3 tribal class destroyers would receive there AS modernisation then they would need replacing in the mid 60s right when the adams entered service OYL
The first 2 darings where on time till the unions got involved if the goverment stepped in earlier they would have been on time, though not sure about budget.
The reason the 4th daring got canned was a reduction in defence spending to pay for korea deployments if i remember correctly, there was another reason but i cant remember it
Though in this scenario it would still be built

Let me suggest a compromise; the bulk of the ships got refitted in USA, and one ship would be refitted by Australian shipyards. That way both the Navy would be satisfied, and shipyards would gain some experience.

Maybe send Hobart and a heap of australian yard workers to the us to gain experience and then do the battles and darings in house

 

[Dilandu]

I don't think it would kill any attempt to obtain the adams class, cause in this scenario all 3 tribal class destroyers would receive there AS modernisation then they would need replacing in the mid 60s right when the adams entered service OYL

It would, because A - all available money would be consumed by refit (esoecially if some part would be done at home, which would cost more), and B - they wouldn't be needed as much, simce refitted destroyers would be able to perform their intended functions. So no, no Adams.

The first 2 darings where on time till the unions got involved if the goverment stepped in earlier they would have been on time, though not sure about budget.
The reason the 4th daring got canned was a reduction in defence spending to pay for korea deployments if i remember correctly, there was another reason but i cant remember it
Though in this scenario it would still be built

Again, time & money matters.

Maybe send Hobart and a heap of australian yard workers to the us to gain experience and then do the battles and darings in house

Hardly something US shipbuilders would agree to. Their profit would be reduced.

 

[Caryina2642]

It would, because A - all available money would be consumed by refit (esoecially if some part would be done at home, which would cost more), and B - they wouldn't be needed as much, simce refitted destroyers would be able to perform their intended functions. So no, no Adams.



Again, time & money matters.


Hardly something US shipbuilders would agree to. Their profit would be reduced.

True but i would say if these conversions would be happening there would be more money avaliable so i wouldnt put out of the questions for when the tribals need replacing in the 60s
Not if the goverment pays a bit extra money for it to happen. i wouldnt say its out of the realms of possibilty.

 

[Dilandu]

Not if the goverment pays a bit extra money for it to happen. i wouldnt say its out of the realms of possibilty.

Not out of possibility, true, but it would require a pretty strong stimulus for such additional spendings.

 

[Caryina2642]

Not out of possibility, true, but it would require a pretty strong stimulus for such additional spendings.

Which i would say an australian goverment with a bit more ambition to modernistion naval shipbuilding and gain experience would do
i would say it would be worth it in the long run

 

[Yellow Palace]

The reason the 4th daring got canned was a reduction in defence spending to pay for korea deployments if i remember correctly, there was another reason but i cant remember it

IIRC, it was cut in order to afford both SYDNEY and MELBOURNE.

Maybe send Hobart and a heap of australian yard workers to the us to gain experience and then do the battles and darings in house

The usual way these things have been done is for the first couple of ships to be done entirely by the experienced foreign yard. The next few are done by the domestic yard, with oversight from managers and engineers from the experienced yard. That oversight gradually tapers off as the domestic yard gains experience.

The cost vs. profit margin thing depends largely on who's doing the sums. If foreign exchange is in short supply, it might be sensible to spend (theoretically) more money, but spend it in your own currency. The US yard may very well pitch its fee for providing oversight at a level that makes them the same profit for a lot less work. And depending on strategic goals, the US government may see fit to subsidise and/or penalise as appropriate.

 

[Caryina2642]

IIRC, it was cut in order to afford both SYDNEY and MELBOURNE.

The usual way these things have been done is for the first couple of ships to be done entirely by the experienced foreign yard. The next few are done by the domestic yard, with oversight from managers and engineers from the experienced yard. That oversight gradually tapers off as the domestic yard gains experience.

The cost vs. profit margin thing depends largely on who's doing the sums. If foreign exchange is in short supply, it might be sensible to spend (theoretically) more money, but spend it in your own currency. The US yard may very well pitch its fee for providing oversight at a level that makes them the same profit for a lot less work. And depending on strategic goals, the US government may see fit to subsidise and/or penalise as appropriate.

i dont think it was to afford both carriers, cause the modernisation of sydney was canned around the same time too (Which i would like to have done aswell as the missile conversion, though with this i will agree this needs to be done it britian)
SO Hobart and the Battles with the darings done in Oz with some us oversight?

 

[Dilandu]

Which i would say an australian goverment with a bit more ambition to modernistion naval shipbuilding and gain experience would do
i would say it would be worth it in the long run

If Australia was ruled by dictator, yes, the ambition would be enough. But more or less democratic government would need to justify such spendings. Or it would lose next election & next one would reduce spending anyway.

 

[Caryina2642]

If Australia was ruled by dictator, yes, the ambition would be enough. But more or less democratic government would need to justify such spendings. Or it would lose next election & next one would reduce spending anyway.

Honestly I dont see this as too hard to sell especially if the promote it as a way for more shipbuilding in country afterwards.
Really its no different to sending all our ships to the us to refit and not building ships in Australia.
At least this way your yards are becoming more experienced and better builders. It would be quite an easy sell to the public.
Plus the liberal government didn't loose an election to the 70s so I think they would be safe

 

[Volkodav]

To put it simply - no. You have tech level, but neither experience, nor capabilities. Its especially important for refits, where the existing hardware must be adopted to operate with new one, that was neither intended nor supposed to be compatible. Especially the hardware that is significantly over the Australian capabilities, like SAM's.

If such refit would be commensed on domestic Australian shipyards, it would likely took 6-8 years per ship. Maybe more. Look, it took four years for Italians to refit Garibaldi, and Italian shipbuilding was two orders of magnitude more capable and more experienced than Australian.

Recall how long it took for Australia to build Daring-class destroyers - 7-8 years on average - and you would see that trying to refit the fleet using domestic capabilities is just impractical. Especially considering that every major component would need to be imported, and any kind of unforeseen problem would cause communication & logistic issues with Americans. Who, I should point, may not be eager to participate in domestic refit program at all; their cut would be significantly smaller, than from refit on US shipyards.

Actually, Australia had a capable shipbuilding industry as well as electronics, computing, guided weapons and even drone technology in the 50s and 60s. What Australia lacks (and continues to lack) is quality leadership, both political and industrial. In an act of stupidity, it was decided that it was inappropriate for Australia to be a leader in electronics and computing, and that we should remain a primarily agricultural country. Sort of like when we decided to kill much of our manufacturing in favour of mining in the 2010s

Australian yards built Tribal Class destroyers, River and Bay Class frigates during the war, followed by Battles and Daring, as well as Type 12 frigates, as well as upgrades for the earlier rivers, Bays and Tribals, plus the Type 15 conversions for the Q Class. Originally, there were to have been four Darings and twelve Type 12s, this was cut back significantly to three Darings and two batches of two Type 12s.

The program was well within Australia's means, but defence was a low priority until it wasn't, then panic stations in response to Indonesia's assertiveness, backed by a new Soviet arsenal, saw the reintroduction of conscription and the modernisation of the services. This is when plans to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm were reversed, the DDG program was kicked off and there was even consideration to buying surplus USN WWII built destroyers to increase numbers. Again, pretty much like we are seeing again now.

Lack of leadership and the low priority given to defence saw Australia's services and defence industries go through boom and bust cycles that likely cost much more than just developing a reasonable plan and sticking to it. Every time our shipyards get up to speed they get about a decade, plus or minus a couple of years work, then nothing.

 

[Dilandu]

Actually, Australia had a capable shipbuilding industry as well as electronics, computing, guided weapons and even drone technology in the 50s and 60s. What Australia lacks (and continues to lack) is quality leadership, both political and industrial. In an act of stupidity, it was decided that it was inappropriate for Australia to be a leader in electronics and computing, and that we should remain a primarily agricultural country. Sort of like when we decided to kill much of our manufacturing in favour of mining in the 2010s

Hm. An argument.

 

[Rule of cool]

The program was well within Australia's means, but defence was a low priority until it wasn't, then panic stations in response to Indonesia's assertiveness, backed by a new Soviet arsenal, saw the reintroduction of conscription and the modernisation of the services. This is when plans to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm were reversed, the DDG program was kicked off and there was even consideration to buying surplus USN WWII built destroyers to increase numbers. Again, pretty much like we are seeing again now.

Lack of leadership and the low priority given to defence saw Australia's services and defence industries go through boom and bust cycles that likely cost much more than just developing a reasonable plan and sticking to it. Every time our shipyards get up to speed they get about a decade, plus or minus a couple of years work, then nothing.

This reflects Australia's fundamental security in the absence of a revisionist great naval power in the Pacific, such as Japan in the 30s and 40s. When this security is threatened by a potential coalition of nearby minor powers Australia goes nuts on Defence, but that only happened once, and the threat dissipated within a handful of years.

 

[Caryina2642]

Actually, Australia had a capable shipbuilding industry as well as electronics, computing, guided weapons and even drone technology in the 50s and 60s. What Australia lacks (and continues to lack) is quality leadership, both political and industrial. In an act of stupidity, it was decided that it was inappropriate for Australia to be a leader in electronics and computing, and that we should remain a primarily agricultural country. Sort of like when we decided to kill much of our manufacturing in favour of mining in the 2010s

Australian yards built Tribal Class destroyers, River and Bay Class frigates during the war, followed by Battles and Daring, as well as Type 12 frigates, as well as upgrades for the earlier rivers, Bays and Tribals, plus the Type 15 conversions for the Q Class. Originally, there were to have been four Darings and twelve Type 12s, this was cut back significantly to three Darings and two batches of two Type 12s.

The program was well within Australia's means, but defence was a low priority until it wasn't, then panic stations in response to Indonesia's assertiveness, backed by a new Soviet arsenal, saw the reintroduction of conscription and the modernisation of the services. This is when plans to get rid of the Fleet Air Arm were reversed, the DDG program was kicked off and there was even consideration to buying surplus USN WWII built destroyers to increase numbers. Again, pretty much like we are seeing again now.

Lack of leadership and the low priority given to defence saw Australia's services and defence industries go through boom and bust cycles that likely cost much more than just developing a reasonable plan and sticking to it. Every time our shipyards get up to speed they get about a decade, plus or minus a couple of years work, then nothing.

Agreeded 110% here mate

This reflects Australia's fundamental security in the absence of a revisionist great naval power in the Pacific, such as Japan in the 30s and 40s. When this security is threatened by a potential coalition of nearby minor powers Australia goes nuts on Defence, but that only happened once, and the threat dissipated within a handful of years.

True but it not to imagine if the government actually decided to invest in defence that this would happen

 

[Rule of cool]

True but it not to imagine if the government actually decided to invest in defence that this would happen

Sure, but how do you make that happen? The only opportunity for change that I can find is the failed merger of the Defence group of Departments in 1958, which would make for efficiencies within the Department, a change in decision making and a more powerful Minister better able to build an empire by getting a bigger budget and more responsibility.

It doesn't help with this missile rebuild scenario, which I think isn't the best way to get missiles into the fleet anyway.

 

[Caryina2642]

Sure, but how do you make that happen? The only opportunity for change that I can find is the failed merger of the Defence group of Departments in 1958, which would make for efficiencies within the Department, a change in decision making and a more powerful Minister better able to build an empire by getting a bigger budget and more responsibility.

It doesn't help with this missile rebuild scenario, which I think isn't the best way to get missiles into the fleet anyway.

Personally i think you need the goverment to a priorities defence in the 50s and one that want to modernise shipbuilding, which again i dont think would be to hard.
or you have an earlier indonesia threat which is possible too

 

[Rule of cool]

Personally i think you need the goverment to a priorities defence in the 50s and one that want to modernise shipbuilding, which again i dont think would be to hard.
or you have an earlier indonesia threat which is possible too

How do you arrange those things? Were there definable points where such changes could be made?

 

[Caryina2642]

How do you arrange those things? Were there definable points where such changes could be made?

You could always stick to the original plan or Menzies be a little more bold in foreign policy and just follow the UK and US

 

[Caryina2642]

Where was sydneys planned modernisation supposed to happen before it was cancelled, I'm guessing the UK?

 

[Yellow Palace]

Where was sydneys planned modernisation supposed to happen before it was cancelled, I'm guessing the UK?

That seems to have been the assumption. In fact in the earliest plans, both SYDNEY and MELBOURNE were to have been acquired unmodernised even if completing MELBOURNE as a modernised ship were cheaper. Presumably under that plan, SYDNEY would have been sent for modernisation once MELBOURNE completed.

Incidentally, I've dug up some of the planning assumptions from 1946-1947:

• By 1951–52: two light fleet carriers, three cruisers, including one in reserve, eight destroyers (two in reserve) and nine frigates (six in reserve).
• By 1960–61: three light fleet carriers, six cruisers, twenty-four destroyers, eighteen frigates, a repair ship, a stores carrier and two fleet tankers, but no battleship or submarine.

So I'm glad that's realistic.

The above is from Australian Carrier Decisions. I've not yet looked into From Empire Defence to the Long Haul, but I expect it covers the key decisions for the period under discussion here.

 

[Caryina2642]

That seems to have been the assumption. In fact in the earliest plans, both SYDNEY and MELBOURNE were to have been acquired unmodernised even if completing MELBOURNE as a modernised ship were cheaper. Presumably under that plan, SYDNEY would have been sent for modernisation once MELBOURNE completed.

Incidentally, I've dug up some of the planning assumptions from 1946-1947:

• By 1951–52: two light fleet carriers, three cruisers, including one in reserve, eight destroyers (two in reserve) and nine frigates (six in reserve).
• By 1960–61: three light fleet carriers, six cruisers, twenty-four destroyers, eighteen frigates, a repair ship, a stores carrier and two fleet tankers, but no battleship or submarine.

So I'm glad that's realistic.

The above is from Australian Carrier Decisions. I've not yet looked into From Empire Defence to the Long Haul, but I expect it covers the key decisions for the period under discussion here.

From empire defence to the long haul states exactly the same but also goes into more detail about some of the smaller ship plans as well like ten boom defence vessels, twelve minesweepers & thirty seaward defence boats
Maybe by 1970 it could be if nothing changes to the plan and an earlier two ocean policy, which is talked about in empire defence to the long haul.
In empire defence to the long haul they talk about how fremantle will be a major naval base

 

[Volkodav]

Hm. An argument.

No argument, just fact. When the politicians and special interest groups step out of the way the clever kids get on with the job.

One repeated occurrence is Australia hires the best talent they can globally when building up capability, then the second they are naturalised and considered Australian, our own ruling classes assume they have been lobotomised and are now as dumb and useless as all the natural born Aussies.

 

[Caryina2642]

No argument, just fact. When the politicians and special interest groups step out of the way the clever kids get on with the job.

One repeated occurrence is Australia hires the best talent they can globally when building up capability, then the second they are naturalised and considered Australian, our own ruling classes assume they have been lobotomised and are now as dumb and useless as all the natural born Aussies.

Agree mate and it happens to many times to count