An Australian Belknap or Leahy based DLG instead of the "Perth/Adams" Class DDGs

[Volkodav]

Australia bought three Adams Class DDGs from the US after approaching the UK for a Tartar armed County derivative and also considering the Brook Class DEG. The Adams were probably the best, off the shelf, option at the time but did not meet key Australian requirements. This has been covered off in various articles and even a retired admirals PhD thesis.

It is this work https://seapower.navy.gov.au/media-room/publications/sea-power-series-05, plus conflating some other inputs that has led me to this Alternative History concept.

Basically, the critical required capabilities were Tartar, medium calibre guns and a helicopter. Tartar was preferred because of its anti-surface capability, which is also why the guns were required. At the time Indonesia was building an impressive (on paper) fleet of Soviet designed warships, centred on a Sverdlov Class cruiser, as well as an impressive modern air force.

Australia initially wanted a completely redesigned "Tartar" County and the UK said no. Options for modifying the Adams were considered as well, including supressing the aft gun to fit a hangar and flight deck for a single Wessex helicopter, and a more extensive modification removing some boilers to fit a larger hangar for two helicopters.

My what if is Australia approaches G&C for example, and asks for a DLG hull with one or two Mk-13s for Tartar and one or two Mk-42 5" or even Mk6 4.5" gun mounts and helicopter facilities.

 

[Rule of cool]

The CFAs were about the size and, more importantly crew size the RAN wanted, both the Countys and Belknaps had 50% larger crews. The RAN didn't particularly want more SAMs, when the 4th DDG was recommended in 1964 it was rejected because a 4th SAM ship wasn't necessary. I think a Belknap would be too much ship for the RAN, nor would the RAN want a non-standard ship for its first DDG class. On the other hand a 4th Perth class to replace Voyager would be a great idea.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Instead of a modified Leahy or Belknap DLG why not just buy the Belknap DLG as was, because it already had an area defence SAM (Terrier/Standard ER), a gun and helicopter facilities. Altering the design along the lines that you suggested might make it more expensive than a standard Belknap. The running cost might be not much more than an Adams because according to my copy of Conway's 1947-1995 a Belknap had a crew of 388 and an Adams had a crew of 333-350. In addition to the larger crew a Belknap can't be modified to fire Ikara because there's no ASROC launcher to replace with an Ikara launcher and the Ikara missile wasn't compatible with the Mk 10 GMLS.

Edit: Ninja'd by @Rule of cool

 

[Volkodav]

The CFAs were about the size and, more importantly crew size the RAN wanted, both the Countys and Belknaps had 50% larger crews. The RAN didn't particularly want more SAMs, when the 4th DDG was recommended in 1964 it was rejected because a 4th SAM ship wasn't necessary. I think a Belknap would be too much ship for the RAN, nor would the RAN want a non-standard ship for its first DDG class. On the other hand a 4th Perth class to replace Voyager would be a great idea.

The big picture was that the Daring and possibly even the Battle Class destroyers would receive Tartar in the midlife updates. The RAN chose Tartar because they also planned to use it on the air defence variant of the DDL (which became the only variant), that was planned as a supplement for the existing destroyer and frigate/DE force.

Aspirational numbers in the late 60s, when the Perths where selected, were 23 major combatants. This was the Perths, the upgraded Darings (and possibly the Battles), the River Class DEs (Type 12 derivatives), with numbers being made up by the DDL program. Most of them were meant to have Tartar. Cost cutting, politics, end of the Vietnam War, a military coup in Indonesia etc. led to a change in the strategic thinking from the late 60s onwards.

David Shackleton has mentioned that the Belknap may have been better value for money for Australia than the Adams Class as it more closely met requirements in terms of command facilities, data links etc. that had to be retrofitted to the Perths at great expense later on.

In a nutshell, what I am proposing is a conflation of the different facts.

• The RAN wanted Tartar as its missile system going forward.
• The RAN planned to fit Tartar to multiple platforms, for instance, I believe the question was asked about fitting it to the Type 42 Destroyer before the FFG-07 was selected, and it was even a desirable (at least space and weight) requirement for the carrier replacement.
• The RAN wanted medium calibre guns, preferably fore and aft.
• The RAN wanted one, preferably two or more helicopters.
• The RAN originally wanted a ship based on the County Class DLG with Tartar instead of Seaslug.
• in hindsight the Belknap would have been better value for money.
• Extensively redesigned and modified versions of the Adams were investigated.

Looking outside the square USN DLG hulls were an evolution from the Mitscher, through Farragut to Leahy and Belknap, with probably still a fair bit of their design DNA present in the California Class DLGNs. This is where it gets interesting, the California Class were, as I remember from Friedmans US Destroyers, a nuclear derivative of the cancelled 1967 DDG.

I'm not home at the moment so can't access my copy but I wouldn't be surprised to find the dates of the 1967 DDG concepts may have made them not too far off the RAN modified Adams time line.

Previously I've toyed with modified and evolved County concepts but realistically the US had much more capacity to design or adapt a ship to meet Australia's requirements. Around this time Australia was also considering procuring a significant number of modernised ex USN destroyers to increase fleet numbers.

It doesn't take too much imagination to envisage something approaching a conventionally powered California serving in the RAN.

 

[Volkodav]

Instead of a modified Leahy or Belknap DLG why not just buy the Belknap DLG as was, because it already had an area defence SAM (Terrier/Standard ER), a gun and helicopter facilities. Altering the design along the lines that you suggested might make it more expensive than a standard Belknap. The running cost might be not much more than an Adams because according to my copy of Conway's 1947-1995 a Belknap had a crew of 388 and an Adams had a crew of 333-350. In addition to the larger crew a Belknap can't be modified to fire Ikara because there's no ASROC launcher to replace with an Ikara launcher and the Ikara missile wasn't compatible with the Mk 10 GMLS.

Edit: Ninja'd by @Rule of cool

THis is basically what VADM Shackleton suggested. When you look at all the upgrades, their cost and the impact on availability the Perths required, the Belknaps may have been a better option. The downside was the RAN wanted Tartar because of the assumption that most of their major combatants would need to be armed with the same missile type.

 

[Dilandu]

• The RAN wanted Tartar as its missile system going forward.
• The RAN planned to fit Tartar to multiple platforms, for instance, I believe the question was asked about fitting it to the Type 42 Destroyer before the FFG-07 was selected, and it was even a desirable (at least space and weight) requirement for the carrier replacement.
• The RAN wanted medium calibre guns, preferably fore and aft.
• The RAN wanted one, preferably two or more helicopters.
• The RAN originally wanted a ship based on the County Class DLG with Tartar instead of Seaslug.
• in hindsight the Belknap would have been better value for money.
• Extensively redesigned and modified versions of the Adams were investigated.

Essentially, the perfect destroyer for 1960s RAN would be the Soviet Project 61:



* Tartar-comparable SAM fore and aft
* Medium-cailber guns (dual 76-mm) fore and aft
* Deck for helicopter

I suppose the rear M-1 Volna could be removed & rear AK-76 moved in its place to free the space on the stern for a hangar, to better fit Australian demands.

 

[Hood]

Modifying the Leahy looks more feasible to me - would require a lot of internal reorganization but I'd say you could get 5in fore and aft and Tartar forward with a bigger (full beam width) hangar for a couple of Wessex. Not sure there would be much space for growth to add Ikara later though, unless you replaced the aft 5in perhaps with a deckhouse arrangement.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This is basically what VADM Shackleton suggested. When you look at all the upgrades, their cost and the impact on availability the Perths required, the Belknaps may have been a better option. The downside was the RAN wanted Tartar because of the assumption that most of their major combatants would need to be armed with the same missile type.

For what it's worth Terrier/Standard ER was Tatar/Standard MR with a booster added and if you wanted SPG-51 guidance radars could be fitted instead of SPG-55s which IIRC the Virginias, Kidds and Tinconderogas with the Mk 26 GMLS (firing Standard ER) had to standardise with the other ships that were to have Tatar/Standard MR.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Modifying the Leahy looks more feasible to me - would require a lot of internal reorganization but I'd say you could get 5in fore and aft and Tartar forward with a bigger (full beam width) hangar for a couple of Wessex. Not sure there would be much space for growth to add Ikara later though, unless you replaced the aft 5in perhaps with a deckhouse arrangement.

But with the Belknap (which is 14ft longer (wl) and 1ft 5in beamier) one already has the helicopter facilities and one 5in gun aft so it's "simply" removing the Mk 10 GMLS and replacing it with a Mk 13 GMLS in B position and a 5in gun in A position. Furthermore, the Belknap was actually being built when the 3 Adams class for the RAN were built IOTL. I agree that they'd have trouble finding the space for Ikara.

The next stage would be a Belknap/Truxton hybrid. That, is the conventional machinery of the Belknap class in a Truxtun hull, which was 16ft longer (wl) and nearly 3ft beamier than a Belknap's. With that maybe a second 5in gun could take the place of the Mk 10 GMLS and a Mk 13 GMLS be fitted between the forward gun and the superstructure. The longer & beamier hull might have the space for Ikara too.

 

[Gottfried the gentleman]

Was the Farragut class every considered? Or was the rim-2 terrier they were equipped with not under consideration?

 

[Rule of cool]

The big picture was that the Daring and possibly even the Battle Class destroyers would receive Tartar in the midlife updates. The RAN chose Tartar because they also planned to use it on the air defence variant of the DDL (which became the only variant), that was planned as a supplement for the existing destroyer and frigate/DE force.

Aspirational numbers in the late 60s, when the Perths where selected, were 23 major combatants. This was the Perths, the upgraded Darings (and possibly the Battles), the River Class DEs (Type 12 derivatives), with numbers being made up by the DDL program. Most of them were meant to have Tartar. Cost cutting, politics, end of the Vietnam War, a military coup in Indonesia etc. led to a change in the strategic thinking from the late 60s onwards.

David Shackleton has mentioned that the Belknap may have been better value for money for Australia than the Adams Class as it more closely met requirements in terms of command facilities, data links etc. that had to be retrofitted to the Perths at great expense later on.

In a nutshell, what I am proposing is a conflation of the different facts.

• The RAN wanted Tartar as its missile system going forward.
• The RAN planned to fit Tartar to multiple platforms, for instance, I believe the question was asked about fitting it to the Type 42 Destroyer before the FFG-07 was selected, and it was even a desirable (at least space and weight) requirement for the carrier replacement.
• The RAN wanted medium calibre guns, preferably fore and aft.
• The RAN wanted one, preferably two or more helicopters.
• The RAN originally wanted a ship based on the County Class DLG with Tartar instead of Seaslug.
• in hindsight the Belknap would have been better value for money.
• Extensively redesigned and modified versions of the Adams were investigated.

Looking outside the square USN DLG hulls were an evolution from the Mitscher, through Farragut to Leahy and Belknap, with probably still a fair bit of their design DNA present in the California Class DLGNs. This is where it gets interesting, the California Class were, as I remember from Friedmans US Destroyers, a nuclear derivative of the cancelled 1967 DDG.

I'm not home at the moment so can't access my copy but I wouldn't be surprised to find the dates of the 1967 DDG concepts may have made them not too far off the RAN modified Adams time line.

Previously I've toyed with modified and evolved County concepts but realistically the US had much more capacity to design or adapt a ship to meet Australia's requirements. Around this time Australia was also considering procuring a significant number of modernised ex USN destroyers to increase fleet numbers.

It doesn't take too much imagination to envisage something approaching a conventionally powered California serving in the RAN.

I think you're conflating a number of requirements that came and went over a period of a decade or more. For example, the idea that Darings would be equipped with Tartar died with the order of the 3rd Perth DDG in 1963, but IIRC there was an idea to fit them with Ikara and/or Sea Cat that lingered until the late 60s. There was recommendation for a 4th DDG that was rejected and with the loss of the Voyager in Feb 64 this wasn't bought up again but instead a pair of Leander-derived Rivers were ordered, so Tartar/SAMs weren't seen as super vital in the early-mid 60s. The ship that ended up as the Standard equipped DDL design of 1973 started out in 1966 as a 1,000t Corvette with a pair of 5" guns, through cooperation with the RN in about 1969 that for them evolved into the Type 21 into the SAM equipped DDL by 1973, then we bought the OHP Frigate.

The of course were the requirements to replace/upgrade Melbourne and acquire a submarine capability and grow that into an offensive arm.

It's not surprising that a low change CFA was selected rather than something bigger, more expensive, more demanding for crew and bespoke.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I'm not home at the moment so can't access my copy but I wouldn't be surprised to find the dates of the 1967 DDG concepts may have made them not too far off the RAN modified Adams time line.

The Perth-class timeline dates back into the late 1950s - that's when the Counties were considered and rejected. The choice was set in 1960 and the orders made in 1962.

Meanwhile, the 1967 DDG concepts were drawn up in 1965. So while yes that design meets all the requirements it comes too late for a decision on the Perths.

 

[Rule of cool]

https://seapower.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Working_Paper_2.pdf

Here's a good precis of the RAN selection of the CFAs, with a few bits of gold about the Darings, check out footnote #42.

 

[Lascaris]

For the obvious question how much does a Belknap or Leahy costs in comparison to an Adams? The 1965-66 Janes mentions $43.75 million per ship for the German Adams. The "Taxpayer Navy" gives the average cost of each Leahy as $395 and $354 million for eack Belknap which seems to me off... by orders of magnitude?

 

[Rule of cool]

For the obvious question how much does a Belknap or Leahy costs in comparison to an Adams? The 1965-66 Janes mentions $43.75 million per ship for the German Adams. The "Taxpayer Navy" gives the average cost of each Leahy as $395 and $354 million for eack Belknap which seems to me off... by orders of magnitude?

The first 2 RAN Adams cost USD $39,300,000 each, the total package cost USD $90 million and we paid it over 8 years. This was 15% cheaper than the County class. The financial terms were very attractive and a major selling point.

 

[Volkodav]

But with the Belknap (which is 14ft longer (wl) and 1ft 5in beamier) one already has the helicopter facilities and one 5in gun aft so it's "simply" removing the Mk 10 GMLS and replacing it with a Mk 13 GMLS in B position and a 5in gun in A position. Furthermore, the Belknap was actually being built when the 3 Adams class for the RAN were built IOTL. I agree that they'd have trouble finding the space for Ikara.

The next stage would be a Belknap/Truxton hybrid. That, is the conventional machinery of the Belknap class in a Truxtun hull, which was 16ft longer (wl) and nearly 3ft beamier than a Belknap's. With that maybe a second 5in gun could take the place of the Mk 10 GMLS and a Mk 13 GMLS be fitted between the forward gun and the superstructure. The longer & beamier hull might have the space for Ikara too.

Steel is cheap and air is free. I need to check Friedman for info on the 1967 DDG, the cancelled Adams successor.

 

[Volkodav]

I think you're conflating a number of requirements that came and went over a period of a decade or more. For example, the idea that Darings would be equipped with Tartar died with the order of the 3rd Perth DDG in 1963, but IIRC there was an idea to fit them with Ikara and/or Sea Cat that lingered until the late 60s. There was recommendation for a 4th DDG that was rejected and with the loss of the Voyager in Feb 64 this wasn't bought up again but instead a pair of Leander-derived Rivers were ordered, so Tartar/SAMs weren't seen as super vital in the early-mid 60s. The ship that ended up as the Standard equipped DDL design of 1973 started out in 1966 as a 1,000t Corvette with a pair of 5" guns, through cooperation with the RN in about 1969 that for them evolved into the Type 21 into the SAM equipped DDL by 1973, then we bought the OHP Frigate.

The of course were the requirements to replace/upgrade Melbourne and acquire a submarine capability and grow that into an offensive arm.

It's not surprising that a low change CFA was selected rather than something bigger, more expensive, more demanding for crew and bespoke.

All but the last requirement was what the RAN went into the program with, the last was an attempt to get the Adams to better meet the requirements.

The other factor was the decision to keep Melbourne as a CTOL carrier, basically a small CVS. The Tracker / Skyhawk acquisition and upgrades to Melbourne, not only impacted plans for the surface fleet, they cost the RAN the last pair of Oberons.

The reason the early acquisition of a DDG was so important was Melbourne was meant to be converted to a helicopter carrier in the early 60s. The RAN desired half its surface combatants to be guided missile armed.

It has recently become known that the RANs submarine program had originally included the option of switching to a mix of three Oberons for training and five SSNs.

Indonesia's coup actually stabilised the region in Australia's favour, allowing many capabilities, previously seen as necessities to become, "nice to haves".

 

[Volkodav]

https://seapower.navy.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/Working_Paper_2.pdf

Here's a good precis of the RAN selection of the CFAs, with a few bits of gold about the Darings, check out footnote #42.

Thanks for that, I have read it before but hadn't recalled the details.

 

[Rule of cool]

The RAN desired half its surface combatants to be guided missile armed.

What does this mean exactly, and by when? Does it include Sea Cat on the Rivers?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The last line of Post 11.

It's not surprising that a low change CFA was selected rather than something bigger, more expensive, more demanding for crew and bespoke.

Of the above more demanding for crew is the most important.

I wrote in Post 3 that . . .

The running cost might be not much more than an Adams because according to my copy of Conway's 1947-1995 a Belknap had a crew of 388 and an Adams had a crew of 333-350.

However, according to my copy of Jane's 1986-87 the difference between the crew of a DLG and a DDG was much larger.

567 Truxtun​

566 Bainbridge​

513 Belknap class​

513 Leahy class​

467 Coontz class​

384 USN Charles F. Adams class​

333 RAN Charles F. Adams class​

​

So a Belknap required 133 more men than a USN Adams and 180 more men than a RAN Adams.

For example, the RAN didn't acquire Hermes in the late 1960s (to replace Melbourne) because her crew was much larger than Melbourne's. Hermes had a crew of 2,100 "with air squadrons" according to every edition of Jane's from 1960-61 to 1969-70 (i.e. when she was a strike carrier). In the 1970s Melbourne had a crew of 1,335 "includes 347 Carrier Air Group personnel" according to the editions of Jane's from 1972-73 to 1980-81.

Interestingly, the same editions of Jane's say that the crew of Hermes without air squadrons was 1,830 to 1,834, which means the air squadrons 266 to 270 in the air squadrons, which is less than the 347 personnel in Melbourne's carrier air group. But it may not be a like-for-like comparison. The crew of Hermes went down to 980 after she was converted to a commando carrier (Jane's 1974-75 to 1976-77) but after her conversion to an ASW carrier in 1976 this increased to 1,350 (Jane's 1978-79 to 1980-81).

Jane's 1953-54 says Centaur's crew was "1,400 (war)" and every other subsequent edition (in the range 1954-55 to 1969-70) at says 1,028 "ship's company, including ship's air complement" and 1,330 to 1,390 "with air squadrons". Why Hermes had a crew that was 50% larger than Centaur is a mystery to me. They had the same machinery & a similar size air group, which leaves the more advanced electronics that Hermes had, but I find it hard to believe that the Type 984 radar, CDS & DPT required another 700 men. I suspect that Centaur had a much larger crew in the early 1960s but the editors of Jane's didn't have the information or didn't bother to update the entry if they did.

According to Jane's Albion & Bulwark had the same size crew as Centaur when they were aircraft carriers, which reduced to 1,035 to 1,037 (plus commandos) when they were commando carriers, which was reduced to 980 from Jane's 1974-75 onwards.

 

[Yellow Palace]

For the obvious question how much does a Belknap or Leahy costs in comparison to an Adams? The 1965-66 Janes mentions $43.75 million per ship for the German Adams. The "Taxpayer Navy" gives the average cost of each Leahy as $395 and $354 million for eack Belknap which seems to me off... by orders of magnitude?

You need to be very, very careful when comparing costs for defence equipment. It's not at all unusual for the headline price for export orders to be for (e.g.) production of one ship, and possibly its first outload of stores and ammunition.

The figure quoted for domestic orders is likely to include those, plus some proportion of design costs, plus training, plus a whole bunch of other things. Exactly which (and how many) other things depends on who's coming up with the cost.

Then there's the issue of inflation: if the costs don't relate to the same year (and with a shipbuilding program, there will always be multiple years) then that complicates matters even further.

All that said... you'd expect the DLGs to be more expensive, just from size. Steel may be cheap, but it isn't free, and it takes great discipline from staff officers not to displace free air with expensive equipment. I expect a large part of the increase in cost and crew needs is the complexity of the (nuclear-capable) Terrier system compared to Tartar.

But when Tartar fits just fine in a much smaller hull, buying a bigger one seems like a very hard sell.

 

[pathology_doc]

The big picture was that the Daring and possibly even the Battle Class destroyers would receive Tartar in the midlife updates.

Why did this not happen? Costs?

I'm sort of glad it didn't, because HMAS Vampire in her current condition is the closest thing we have to a museum Daring.

 

[Rule of cool]

A couple of background things that are relevant.

Until Menzies' defence spending spree in 1963 the Australian defence budget was about 200m Australian pounds per year, the AUP was worth US $2.24 when the GBP was worth US $2.80. In 1960 the RAN appropriation was 45 million pounds (USD $100.8m), the Army 66m and the RAAF 63m, so the difference between a $39m Adams and ~$45m County or Belknap is significant in terms of the RANs early 60s procurement budget.

The RAN (and the rest of the not yet named ADF) of the period was not formed into RAN task forces in order to discharge Australian national tasks but rather a fully integrated part of the RN command structure dedicated to SEATO tasks. In the early-mid 60s the carrier Melbourne was to be the centrepiece of an ASW Task Force in the Sulu Sea in the event of WW3. As such the DDGs weren't acquired so they could escort Melbourne in this Task Force but because the overall Far East Strategic Reserve fleet was somewhat lacking in SAM ships because the RAN didn't have them. This is why the Army had to buy 4 ex USN Landing Ship Mediums in 1959, the RAN had no amphibious role within SEATO and the Army needed the seaborne mobility in the north of Australia and South East Asia.

 

[Volkodav]

What does this mean exactly, and by when? Does it include Sea Cat on the Rivers?

Not sure but approximately half the surface combatants from the early 80s were SM-1MR equipped DDGs and FFGs. This only changed in the late 90s as the planned expansion became a contraction.

 

[Volkodav]

Why did this not happen? Costs?

I'm sort of glad it didn't, because HMAS Vampire in her current condition is the closest thing we have to a museum Daring.

Skyhawk, i.e. Melbourne being retained as a CTOL carrier and the growth of the DDL into a Tartar/StandardMR design.

 

[Rule of cool]

Not sure but approximately half the surface combatants from the early 80s were SM-1MR equipped DDGs and FFGs. This only changed in the late 90s as the planned expansion became a contraction.

Sure, but getting there was a long and somewhat tortuous process, dependant on earlier decisions. Certainly, there was little question of the then 4 Rivers getting Sea Cat, as nothing else was available. By 1961 there would have been 2 DDGs on order and 4 Rivers under construction, making the immediate future 6 x SAM equipped ships with only the 3 Darings and 3 Qs without SAMs.

A timeline of plans/concepts vs purchases would be handy.

 

[Volkodav]

I finally got my copy of US Destroyers out last night and referred to The Fast Taskforce Escorts chapter. On reading an even more logical option, SCB 129, the all-gun precursor to the Farragut Class (SBC 142).

In fact, and I recalled this as I read it, three Farraguts were initially ordered as SCB 129 as a mitigation to Terrier not working.

I believe the first ship was laid down as an SCB 129, the design data was available and G&C etc. would easily have been able to do a Tartar variant that could have been built in a US or even an Australian yard.

 

[Volkodav]

Sure, but getting there was a long and somewhat tortuous process, dependant on earlier decisions. Certainly, there was little question of the then 4 Rivers getting Sea Cat, as nothing else was available. By 1961 there would have been 2 DDGs on order and 4 Rivers under construction, making the immediate future 6 x SAM equipped ships with only the 3 Darings and 3 Qs without SAMs.

A timeline of plans/concepts vs purchases would be handy.

I would need to pull out articles on the DDL and various other programs to work it out. I was all interrelated, i.e. was a fourth Perth not required because of the proposed Daring conversions, or was it the DDL getting Tartar? Was Skyhawk part of the decision?

Sadly, what also happens in real life is cabinet listens to all the arguments for, against and instead of, etc. then decides against, without funding the "instead of".

 

[Rule of cool]

I would need to pull out articles on the DDL and various other programs to work it out. I was all interrelated, i.e. was a fourth Perth not required because of the proposed Daring conversions, or was it the DDL getting Tartar? Was Skyhawk part of the decision?

Sadly, what also happens in real life is cabinet listens to all the arguments for, against and instead of, etc. then decides against, without funding the "instead of".

The problem is that subjects get 'siloed' into capabilities or ship types, but Cabinet looks at the entire RAN and has to decide between DDGs, Subs and A4s.

 

[Volkodav]

The problem is that subjects get 'siloed' into capabilities or ship types, but Cabinet looks at the entire RAN and has to decide between DDGs, Subs and A4s.

Yes and unfortunately those silos don't cater for the holistic requirements of the ADF to achieve its assigned duties.

 

[Rule of cool]

I've rigged up a basic timeline from when the RAN announced it would acquire SAMs to when the DDL became a large multi-role destroyer. What I don't know is when the Daring refits went from Ikara/Sea Cat to guns only.

 

[Volkodav]

I've rigged up a basic timeline from when the RAN announced it would acquire SAMs to when the DDL became a large multi-role destroyer. What I don't know is when the Daring refits went from Ikara/Sea Cat to guns only.

I believe it was post 68, i.e. after Indonesia's coup.

Also, according to Shackleton's paper, Australia began looking at buying surplus USN destroyers in the mid 50s to increase numbers after government had previously cu builds.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I believe it was post 68, i.e. after Indonesia's coup.

Also, according to Shackleton's paper, Australia began looking at buying surplus USN destroyers in the mid 50s to increase numbers after government had previously cu builds.

What does "cu builds" mean?

 

[Lascaris]

You need to be very, very careful when comparing costs for defence equipment. It's not at all unusual for the headline price for export orders to be for (e.g.) production of one ship, and possibly its first outload of stores and ammunition.

The figure quoted for domestic orders is likely to include those, plus some proportion of design costs, plus training, plus a whole bunch of other things. Exactly which (and how many) other things depends on who's coming up with the cost.

Then by comparison the figure for USS Enterprise was $444 million and USS America $293 million. Color me unconvinced a Leahy cost as much as a nuclear super-carrier 10 times its size. Much more likely the writer in his (lack of) wisdom had decided to convert the figures to current prices at the time of his writing which makes them... well useless.

 

[Rule of cool]

Here's a Cabinet-Chief of Staffs Commitee view of the RANs evolving requirements for the 60s.

• 1959 Early RAN announces intention to acquire SAMs ‘soon’. Unknown - 50% of RAN would need SAMs.
• 1959 December RAN to disband fixed wing FAA, orders 27 Wessex ASW helicopters.
• 1960 RAN evaluating County and Adams class DDGs.
• 1961 February Cabinet approves order of 2 Adams class DDGs.
• 1961 plans to refit 3 Daring class with Tartar
• 1963 Naval Board recommends purchase of 4 Oberon submarines to replace the 3 RN subs at Sydney for ASW training. (Ultimate plans for another 4 to create an offensive capability)
• 1963 3rd DDG ordered
• 1963 the 1959 decision to disband fixed wing FAA reversed.
• 1964 February HMAS Voyager sunk, HMS Duchess transferred on 4 year loan
• 1964 Plans to refit Daring class with Ikara and Sea Cat
• 1964 November COSC recommends 4th DDG as a balance for Daring’s switch from Tartar AAW refit to Ikara/Sea Cat ASW refit, Cabinet rejects recommendation, 2 River class DEs ordered.
• 1964 Studies into CVA01 and ex USN Essex class with F4s rejected in favour of refit of Melbourne. 14 S2E Trackers ordered.
• 1965 8 A4E + 2 TA4G ordered (Melbourne to carry 4 as ASW carrier)
• 1966 RAN tries for 4th DDG, rejected. (no details on this)
• 1966 DDL project begun, 1,000t ship 1 x 5” gun and light helicopter to supplement Darings and patrol boats, up to 10 planned
• 1967 DDL discussion with RN, RN withdraws and builds Type 21 when RAN insists on US weapons.
• 1968 DDL 2,100t ships, 2 x 5” guns and light helicopter. Becomes clear DDL will replace Darings and Rivers, not work alongside them.
• 1969 8 A4G + 2 TA4G ordered, 2nd batch of subs reduced from 4 to 2.
• 1969 Daring Ikara/Sea Cat ASW refits cancelled due to costs, refits to be with gun armament only.
• 1969 DDL specified to be more capable and flexible than originally conceived
• 1970 DDL 4.200t ship, 1 x 5” gun, 1 Tartar launcher and 2 x helicopters, plans for 3.

 

[Lascaris]

Jane's 1953-54 says Centaur's crew was "1,400 (war)" and every other subsequent edition (in the range 1954-55 to 1969-70) at says 1,028 "ship's company, including ship's air complement" and 1,330 to 1,390 "with air squadrons". Why Hermes had a crew that was 50% larger than Centaur is a mystery to me. They had the same machinery & a similar size air group, which leaves the more advanced electronics that Hermes had, but I find it hard to believe that the Type 984 radar, CDS & DPT required another 700 men. I suspect that Centaur had a much larger crew in the early 1960s but the editors of Jane's didn't have the information or didn't bother to update the entry if they did.

One notes that INS Viraat had a crew of 1207+143 aircrew for a total of oh... 1350 very much in line with the figures listed for the Centaurs.

 

[Volkodav]

What does "cu builds" mean?

Typo, cut builds. The original intent had been four Darings and eight Rivers, they were cut to three and four respectively.

 

[Rule of cool]

Then by comparison the figure for USS Enterprise was $444 million and USS America $293 million. Color me unconvinced a Leahy cost as much as a nuclear super-carrier 10 times its size. Much more likely the writer in his (lack of) wisdom had decided to convert the figures to current prices at the time of his writing which makes them... well useless.

Or maybe missed a decimal point? Although with the RANs Adams costing US $39.3m this still doesn't solve the issue.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Typo, cut builds. The original intent had been four Darings and eight Rivers, they were cut to three and four respectively.

Eight Rivers? That's news to me. I'm not saying that you're wrong, only that what I've read before is that a plan was to build 6 was announced in August 1950 and they were part of an overall plan for 20 "frigoyers" as follows:

• 4 Daring class destroyers - 3 built.
• 2 Battle class destroyers - already built.
• 3 Modernised Tribal class - 2 modernised.
• 6 Type 12 - 4 built - but the 5th & 6th were reinstated in the 1960s
• 5 Q class destroyers to be converted to Type 15 frigates - 4 converted.

According to Jane's 1952-53.

• 1952 Programme (1952-53 to 1954-55) 3 years - £A 559,000,000 over 3 years of which the RAN to receive £A 137,000,000.
  • It looks like Australia's equivalent to the British 3-year rearmament programme of 1951.
• Naval Programme 36 active and 80 reserve ships, including: 2 CV, 3 cruisers, 9 DD, 11 fast FF, 14 slow FF, 32 minesweepers and 45 other vessels.
• Personnel (1952) 13,490 with 17,000 planned to be attained by 1953.
  • [It wasn't. According to Jane's 1953-54 personnel (1952) was 14,541.]
• 1952 New Construction Programme - 3 Boom Working Vessels, 4 MSC and 4 Seaward Defence Boats
• 4 Daring class ordered 1947 - building.
• 2 Battle class ordered 1946-47 - completed 1950-51 - cost £2.5m (Anzac) and £2.47 (Tobruk).
• 6 Type 12.
  • "In August 1950 it was announced that 6 Type 12 would be built in Australia. 3 at Cockatoo and 3 at Williamstown, but reduced to 2 at each yard. Cost £A 2 million each."
• 5 Q class being converted to Type 15 at a cost of £A 400,000 each.
• The 14 slow frigates were:
  • 4 Bay class.
  • 8 Loch class (one AGS, one on 3-year loan to RNZN and one as training ship for national servicemen).
  • 2 Grimsby class (Warrego as AGS).
• The 32 minesweepers were the 4 MSC in the 1952 NCP and 28 Bathurst class of which one was a training ship and 3 were with the National Service Training Flotilla.
• As amphibious capability has been mentioned earlier in the thread the RAN had 3 LST(3) on loan from the RN out of 6 that were originally transferred.

The 1952 programme was preceded by the 5-Year Programme of 1947 under which £A75 million was to be spend 1947-52. This was for 2 aircraft carriers (Melbourne & Sydney) and 6 destroyers (2 Battle class ordered 1946-47 & 4 Daring ordered 1947). That was according to Jane's 1947-48 which also said that Personnel (1947) was under 10,000, but was to be increased to 14,753 by 1952.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

One notes that INS Viraat had a crew of 1207+143 aircrew for a total of oh... 1350 very much in line with the figures listed for the Centaurs.

What's your source for that. I've got a spreadsheet with the crews for the Colossus & Majestic classes as quoted by Jane's from the late 1940s to the early 1980s. For Hercules/Vikrant they are.

• 1,343 "War" for Hercules Jane's 1949-50 to 1955-56.
• 1,343 "Designed Accommodation" for Virkrant Janes 1960-61 to 1975-76.
• 1,075 "Peace" for Vikrant Jane's 1976-77 to 1980-81.
• 1,345 "War" for Vikrant Jane's 1976-77 to 1980-81.