Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What could have been - Australian between wars ship building
Volkodav    2/1/2009 5:25:06 AM
Australia built its own destroyers and cruisers before and during WWI with the light cruiser HMAS Adelaide, commisioned in 1922, being the last Australian built warship to enter service before WWII. Our destroyers were surplus WWI RN ships and our new Heavy Cruisers were ordered from the UK with the only new construction in Australia consiting of a seaplane carrier and a couple of sloops. Three modern light cruisers and several more WWI vintage destroyers were bought during the mid/late 30's to bolster our defences but things could have been very different. During 1923 atoo Island quoted on the construction of a pair of 10,000 ton "treaty cruisers" based on the Effingham hull, its self evolved from the Town Class we had already built, but with three triple 8" turrets inplace of the originals single 7.2" guns. This design was knocked back on cost and the Counties were ordered from the UK instead. I am not suggesting that the atoo Cruiser would be superior to the Counties, infact it would likely have been inferrior but that building these ships in Australia would have better prepared Austrlaias industry for what was needed in the future. Had these ships been built they likely would have taken longer to deliver than the UK built Counties which would have stretched the program enough to make ordering a second batch to begin replacing the early Town's in the early to mid 30's. End result Australia would have entered WWII with an enhanced local production capability that would have allowed us to build the modern warships we needed when we needed them instead of having to rebuild our shipbuilding industry during a global war. We could have gone to war with six heavy cruisers and been able to build upwards of twenty destroyers instead of the three we managed to complete.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
gf0012-aust       2/1/2009 5:31:31 AM
the dirty word filter has kicked in.

"atoo" is actually "Cokatoo"  phonetically speaking...
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/1/2009 5:31:40 AM
PMSL....for atoo please read Co ckatoo, as in the the Australian Parrot and the name of an Australian shipyard.
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/1/2009 5:33:09 AM
Beat me too it gf.
 
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    What if....   2/1/2009 1:29:43 PM
If the Australian warship building industry had been so capable,
what are people's thoughts as to how this might have affected IJN plans for the southern Pacific territories?
 
Would this capability have put Australian yards on the primary threats lists as the IJ's pursued their goals of domination?
(possibly seeing a strike force attack the Australian mainland in response?)
 
Or possibly created an actual deterrent factor because there was just such a capability to build 10,000tons+ cruisers?
(and certainly smaller yards coulda/woulda/shoulda sprung up to fill the corvette, sloop, and light destroyers ranks...)
 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/7/2009 8:35:48 AM
A bonus of having a respectable ship building industry is that we could have been in the position to build light carriers in the late thirties. 
 
These carries would most likely have been an evolution of a pre war RN concept for a trade protection or light carrier to support the cruiser divisions stationed around the world. 
 
What would these carriers have looked like?
 
Maybe a smaller, single hanger, twin shaft derivative of the Ark Royal, with a designed airgroup of 30 to 50 aircraft instead of 72?
 
As for the airgroup, how about navalised Hurricanes and Henleys, replacing Nimrods and Ospreys?
 
The RAN of WWII coming to consist of a number of hunter killer groups, each with a light carrier, a heavy cruiser, an AA Cruiser and a number of destroyers.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/7/2009 9:44:45 PM

A bonus of having a respectable ship building industry is that we could have been in the position to build light carriers in the late thirties. 

Did Australia have the local industry to construct the high pressure boilers and the steam turbines to build high speed light cruiser type hull power-plants?  You don't need that kind of high speed naval propulsion if you are bulding a trade protection carrier. Maybe you need to look at what the mission requures? Minimum requirement is for airflow over deck of 15 knots.  

These carriers would most likely have been an evolution of a pre war RN concept for a trade protection or light carrier to support the cruiser divisions stationed around the world. 

More likely and cheaper would have been a fast oil tanker conversion.

What would these carriers have looked like?

Like this.
 
 

Maybe a smaller, single hanger, twin shaft derivative of the Ark Royal, with a designed airgroup of 30 to 50 aircraft instead of 72?

 Ark Royal was complex. Simple is the operative word.

As for the airgroup, how about navalised Hurricanes and Henleys, replacing Nimrods and Ospreys?

Good choice. What was the bomb load of the Henley again? You need to be able to drop pairs of 250 kilogram bombs to bracket U-boats.

The RAN of WWII coming to consist of a number of hunter killer groups, each with a light carrier, a heavy cruiser, an AA Cruiser and a number of destroyers.
 
How much is this going to cost?


 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/7/2009 11:20:11 PM
How much is this going to cost?
 
Probably about as much as the Battleship and flotilla of Tribal Class destroyer that the government wanted in addition to the three modified Leander class CL's and WWI surplus destroyers we were able to get.  A Battleship, half a dozen cruisers and a similar number of destroyers would have brought the RAN back to a similar level of capability to what they had at the start of WWI.  As it stood the RAN was less capable in 1939 than it had been in 1914 or even 1920.
 
You can't run down an industry for 20 years and expect them to hit the ground running when new orders finally come through.  This is why I started this post with the premise that Australia build their own treaty cruisers to keep the industrial capability alive, rather than save money and build them in the UK.
 
The issue wasn't so much money but building capacity in the UK yards and capability in the Australian yards.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/8/2009 7:28:31 AM

How much is this going to cost?

 

Probably about as much as the Battleship and flotilla of Tribal Class destroyer that the government wanted in addition to the three modified Leander class CL's and WWI surplus destroyers we were able to get.  A Battleship, half a dozen cruisers and a similar number of destroyers would have brought the RAN back to a similar level of capability to what they had at the start of WWI.  As it stood the RAN was less capable in 1939 than it had been in 1914 or even 1920.
 
NED. But what information supplied suggests that your "battleship oriented squadron " should have been one of the Weird  Sisters instead. I would have tried for two of those Fisher lught battlecruiser abominations  at scrappage rates at the end of WW I and gambled on the aircraft carrier conversion as a naval mission type in the overall Commonwealth naval scheme. Those ships with the Leanders as the appropriate AAA cruisers would have been better defense investments from Canberra's view than an a Ramilles or an Iron Duke. You are talking a lot of money then, Volko. At equivalent nonetary rates today, one of those battleships bought would cost  $ 1 billion USD.   
 
You have to think about local logistics and armament manufacture costs.  Australia could manufacture locally barrels and ammunition for up to six inch bore British guns, Where would you get 13.5 and/or  15 inch bore gun barrels and shells? Believe me, its much easier to make a 500 pound bomb and the 1929 era aircraft that can carry it for Australia: especially if you have to start industry from scratch.  Suppose Britain isn't there? Suppose you need independent means as it eventually turned out you did?
 
You  need naval defense that you can sustain. With the kind of money you are talking about you might as well start thinking protection of SLOCs with shups that can actually protect trade routes.
 
That means aircraft carriers and light cruisers. Not destroyers so much as your AO is HUGE. 
 
So look for opportunity and what you can buy cheap.  That means the Glorious class with which the Royal Navy was somewhat conflicted, Between 1918 and 1920, they didn't exactly know what to do with those ships as they jkept hacking away at them trying to figiure out what to do with Fisher's shallow draft overarmed and underarmored battlecruisers.
 
HMS Glorious, Courageous, and Furious weren't called the Weird Sisters for nothing.  

You can't run down an industry for 20 years and expect them to hit the ground running when new orders finally come through.  This is why I started this post with the premise that Australia build their own treaty cruisers to keep the industrial capability alive, rather than save money and build them in the UK.
 
Or you buy the Weird Sisters and Lexington them and build  Leanders as company to keep the shipyards churning, Trust me. Converting a Furious into an aircraft carrier would take Australia YEARS and occupy plenty of her industry in a major exercise that would keep you humming.along even during the early Slump. It isn't beyond your means aqt hand like rebarreling a battlership's guns, bit it would strain your yards' capacity  to the limit and force you to become carrier experts, nuch the same way the Collins project has forced Australia to the forefront of suibmarine technology.  

The issue wasn't so much money but building capacity in the UK yards and capability in the Australian yards.
 
In a word COLONIAL Mecantilism, a leftover concept from the days when Britain wanted to supply finished goods and the colonies supplied the markets for the goods delivered.
 
Nuts to that.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Volkodav       2/10/2009 3:36:49 AM
I am not suggesting that Australia should have built a Battleship and a Flotilla of Destroyers, but rather pointing out that the Government of the day, under Bob Menzies, wanted too.  A bit like John Howard wanting to send an Armoured Brigade to aid in the invasion of Iraq, good sentiment but years of neglect ensured that it couldn't be done in the time scale.
 
A specialist cruiser builder?  Yes I agree, it was acheivable and should have been done.  The C0ckatoo type Cruisers, with their triple 8" gun houses would have been the perfect project to build this industry on.  It would have taken years and cost millions (even in 1920's prices) but it would have provided us with the infrastructure to produce 8" ordanence, rolled and cemented armour, as well as posibly, steam turbines and high pressure boilers.  How much bwtter off would we have been come WWII had we gone down this path.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/10/2009 9:48:53 AM
Article concerning Australian thinking along those lines in 1937.
I am not suggesting that Australia should have built a Battleship and a Flotilla of Destroyers, but rather pointing out that the Government of the day, under Bob Menzies, wanted too.  A bit like John Howard wanting to send an Armoured Brigade to aid in the invasion of Iraq, good sentiment but years of neglect ensured that it couldn't be done in the time scale.
 
 By the time, the right honorable Robert Menzies came to govern it was too late for Australia to implement any sort of program as U belueve tyhe war was on at the moment of election. I have an ongoing discussion with another American who airily dismisses the problems of long term natiuona industrial planning when it comes to defense, but as you are well aware, sir, from your own experience and comments , the lead times for such items, like major warshipsm can take up to a decade to plan and build. The latest that Australia could plan her defense in the 1940 time frame using her own resources and means, would be around 1930.  
 
A specialist cruiser builder?  Yes I agree, it was achievable and should have been done.  The C0ckatoo type Cruisers, with their triple 8" gun houses would have been the perfect project to build this industry on.  It would have taken years and cost millions (even in 1920's prices) but it would have provided us with the infrastructure to produce 8" ordanence, rolled and cemented armour, as well as possibly, steam turbines and high pressure boilers.  How much better off would we have been come WWII had we gone down this path.
 
Let's look at that idea; starting with this hypothetical:
 
First it is post WWI, and you have British and Australian technology and experience upon which to draw. In those bad old days, imperialism still reared its ugly head so the RN still calls the shots as to what Australia gets ansd what she can contribute, gbuts lets say for the sake of argument that Australua wants her own naval squadron?
 
 
How much money can Australia afford? WW I cost Australia about $1.5 billion US 1918 dollars. THAT is a lot of 1918 money. A WW I  Nevada class battleship cost the US about $30 million US 1918 dollars to build.
 
What follows are estimates in 1918 US dollars.   
 
Wartime spending is $375 million USD per year=roughly 3x the expected peacetime rates.
 
$150 million is the peacetime Australia estimate during the 1920s.
 
30% for defense=$50 million in the government budget. You will have to make special; appropiations for purchase of big ticket items like ships.in your annual estimates and in your five year defense plans.
 
Now what can you buy and build?
 
You can buy the following ships at roughly these 1918 purchase prices.
 
A 7500 tonne light cruiser at roughly $10 million each.
 
One of the Glorious class cruisers prior to carrier conversion at scrappage or about $5-10 million each.
 
 A Tribal class destroyer at roughly $2 million. each
 
Note that as you plan to build or convert these in Australia-amortized costs in building the yards and the shipbuilding structure oncluding the armor and gun foundries, the turbine machinery manufacture (Did you consider diesel electric propulsion? Diesels are cheaper to maintain and actually if you invest in the tech tree far more sensible from a operational standpoint than turbines.) fire control etc. each of these will be 100% greater the cost than if you buy from Britain for the first three examples.  
 
Do not expect your first homebuilt Leander to slide off the weigh before 1930.
 
In the meantime, that conversion program for the Glorious and Furious which you projected to take two years at $10 million each will take three to fo
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics