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

[Volkodav]

During the Melbourne replacement 'saga' in ~1964 C-COSC AM Scherger asked why the RAN was so keen to put vast resources into a new carrier as opposed to the long laundry list of other capabilities that were going unfulfilled. This is a fair question, and I don't recall it being answered.

The answer of course is that of the long list of capabilities a Carrier is a once in a generation capability that once it is gone it can't be replaced in short order. This is in contrast with the surface fleet for example, if the need and resources became available in the time-frame we're talking about the RAN could have refitted the Darings with Tartar or Ikara, refitted some recently decommissioned ships like a Battle and/or Q class and ordered both a 4th DDG and 2 Rivers. In a few years the RAN's surface fleet is reinvigourated and enlarged.

The same can't be done if a carrier is needed, they aren't just lying around like surface warships tend to be, and their squadrons would need time for form up and train, Sqn and CAG Commanders don't grow on trees.

The acquisition of the additional Skyhawks and Trackers was instead of the final two planned Oberons.

The Wessex fleet was procured to convert Melbourne into a helicopter carrier, then she was upgraded to operate her new aircraft, bought in three tranches.

Major investments roughly work out as:

1. Wessex acquisition
2. Skyhawk/Tracker acquisition
3. Upgrade to operate new aircraft
4. Second batch of Skyhawk and Tracker
5. SeaKing

2. and 3. go hand in hand as an all-or-nothing, but any of the others could have been cut, or cut back. If all were cancelled, then maybe even the SSN program could have gained traction.

Don't get me wrong, I like carriers and can see a justification for Australia maintaining the capability, but the issue is the capability was reduced to a single platform in the mid 50s, then retired without replacement in the early 80s. These decisions undermined the rationale for maintaining the capability for as long as it was.

 

[Volkodav]

I was curious if anyone would get the reference.

Oh I did, that one still cracks me up, the trash some people believe.

 

[Volkodav]

The (formerly) US VLF radio station on the NE Cape is named after him. And who could forget the Harold Holt Memorial swimming pool.

It's still there, along with some other interesting goodies.

 

[Volkodav]

As for US designs replacing River class, in my opinion the first US design that would equate to a River would be the Brontstien class, which were laid down in 1961, the same year as the 3rd and 4th Rivers. The 5th and 6th Rivers, which were Leanders rather than Rothsays, were authorised in 1964 and laid down in 1967 & 68, so they could be replaced by Knox class in theory but the RAN and COSC wanted a 4th DDG which would be a better fit for the RAN.

Many years ago, before my grey hair, I speculated that an ideal 60s/70s fleet for Australia, without a carrier, would have been three to five DLGs or CGHs with six to ten DDGs, supported by light frigates or corvettes, supplemented by patrol boats.

So County/Leahy/Belknap or RN Escort Cruiser/Italian style CGH, a mix of Battle/Daring DDG conversions and Adams class. The light frigates would have been the original DDL concept.

 

[starviking]

…SNIP…
Don't get me wrong, I like carriers and can see a justification for Australia maintaining the capability, but the issue is the capability was reduced to a single platform in the mid 50s, then retired without replacement in the early 80s. These decisions undermined the rationale for maintaining the capability for as long as it was.

I always thought it would have been a good idea to have an Australian-owned carrier solidly integrated into the RN’s East of Suez fleet. Would have relieved some load on the RN, and could have kept the fleet East of Suez.

 

[Rule of cool]

I always thought it would have been a good idea to have an Australian-owned carrier solidly integrated into the RN’s East of Suez fleet. Would have relieved some load on the RN, and could have kept the fleet East of Suez.

Australia was committed to the FESR snd SEATO, but kept forces under national command in peacetime. In the mid 60s the Melbourne was to be the centrepiece of an ASW task force in the Sulu Sea for SEATO, and deployed her to annual FESR exercises. In a war situation, like Vietnam, Melbourne would be rotated through in the manner you describe.