Following the Falklands conflict the RN successfully lobbied the UK Government to build a class of two to three larger more capable carriers based the Invincible but incorporating the lessons learnt so recently and painfully. Two of the Invincibles would be retained and converted to Commando Carriers.

As a result of this Invincible was still available for sale to Australia as originally planned.

All of this would occur prior to the election of the Hawke Labor Government.

Would the purchase have gone through?

What would it have done to the future structure of the RAN?
The original plan didn't include Harriers or Sea Harriers, would we have acquired any going forward?

Had we operated this ship from the mid 80's it would now be in need of replacement. If we replace it and what would we replace it with?

 

Fraser would have bought but then Hawke would have sold it or laid it up at the first opportunity. Hawke was pretty clear in his biography that he considered an aircraft carrier for Australia to be a complete and utter WOFTAM, and scrapping the purchase was one of his first executive decisions.

Fraser would have bought but then Hawke would have sold it or laid it up at the first opportunity. Hawke was pretty clear in his biography that he considered an aircraft carrier for Australia to be a complete and utter WOFTAM, and scrapping the purchase was one of his first executive decisions.

 

Thats why I specified pushing it through before he got in, if the ship was already here he would have had great difficulty getting rid of it.  Had it survived in service until the first Fijian coup in 1987 IMO its usefulness would have pretty much guaranteed its future.

 

By scrapping the carrier replacement Hawke shattered the RAN's force structure leaving it without most of its air defence, ASW and surface strike capability which took almost two decades to compensate for.  There was no corresponding increase in land based airpower, no increase in the surface fleets air defence, ASW, or surface strike capability (eg more high end ships, some with Aegis).  Basically the ADF's most versatile asset was retired without replacement because an alcoholic womaniser (by his own admission) thought it was a waste of time and money. 

 

As a side note the upgrade of the original 3 FFG's to operate Seahawks combined with the extra cost of the Seahawks over the Lynx was greater than the cost of the replacement carrier program.  Had we managed to get a replacement carrier the Seakings would have continued as our primary ASW asset negating the need for LAMPS which in turn would have permitted the purchace of Lynx with its Sea Skua ASM negating the requirement that led to the Seasprite fiasco.  Cancelling the carrier was a cost saving that ultimately cost us money as well as capability.

 

I wonder what Keating, Beazley and Ray thought of the issue?

Thats why I specified pushing it through before he got in, if the ship was already here he would have had great difficulty getting rid of it.  Had it survived in service until the first Fijian coup in 1987 IMO its usefulness would have pretty much guaranteed its future.

By scrapping the carrier replacement Hawke shattered the RAN's force structure leaving it without most of its air defence, ASW and surface strike capability which took almost two decades to compensate for.  There was no corresponding increase in land based airpower, no increase in the surface fleets air defence, ASW, or surface strike capability (eg more high end ships, some with Aegis).  Basically the ADF's most versatile asset was retired without replacement because an alcoholic womaniser (by his own admission) thought it was a waste of time and money. 

I wonder what Keating, Beazley and Ray thought of the issue?

Can't help but feel we got a Labor government at the wrong time with the wrong leader.  An election earlier with Hayden or one later with Keating would have done us much better IMO.  Hawkie was popular with the masses but that doesn't mean he was the best man for the job.

 

The biggest loss with the failure to replace Melbourne was her flight deck and hanger, hence the ability to operate Seakings with their dunking sonar and Wessex in their utility role. The relief of Darwin post Cyclone Tracy would have been far more difficult without her. 

 

Indian Seakings were fitted with Sea Eagle ASM's which could have provided us with a reasonable anti ship strike capability at a reasonable cost.

 

All of the final options were also specified with area air defence systems, Standard on the Modified Iwo Jima and SCS, Sea Dart on Invincible.  With or without Harriers these ships would have added to the fleets self defence capability, although obviously a buy of Sea Harrrier F/A2 or AV-8B Plus during the 90's would have delivered even more bang, but at a higher cost.  Even if the big missiles were deleted, the ships could be easily retro fitted with an 8 cell Mk 41 VLS with 32 ESSM at a later date.

 

Had Invincible been delivered and allowed to serve I imagine one of the roll on effects would have been the cancellation of the final pair of FFG's and the replacement of the Rivers on a one for one basis with six capable ASW frigates, such as the Batch 3 Broardsword or an export variant of the Type 23 Duke class.  Without a doubt the DDG's would not have been retired without replacement, considering their was a carrier to escort, so AEGIS would have been a sure thing for the late 90's with the chosen design going on to replace the three of the FFG's as well during the noughties.

 

This would have left us with a force structure consisting of a carrier, 6 DDG and 6 FF(G), with the big decission being whether to go for a single big ship (ie. CVF) or two or three smaller ships (Cavour) to replace Invincible.

 

Note: in retaining a carrier we would not have been able to afford the Collins class so we would have bought new subs MOTS from Europe, likely Agosta or Walrus as they were closest to our requirements.  The first couple would definately have been built in Europe with the option to build later boats in Australia dependant on cost and risk.  An even better option would have been to source an updated Barbel class design from the US through FMS but this would likely have cost too much up front, even if it would have been a better option through life.

Would the Invincible be capable of handling Skyhawks?

 

Would a combine ANZAC naval air arm have been a practicality? NZ had just dived deep into the pool of US isolation with their "no nukes" policy... A strong ANZAC alignment would've eased the concern of ousted right-wing politicans and public...

 

And actually have made the RNZAF A4s a useful defense investment rather than the millstone they were and have become moreso once in storage...

Sydney was retired in he early 70s and Melbourne had a major refit cancelled in 81-82 and never returned to service.  The intention was to use the major refit to keep her inservice until a new carrier could be built when the decission was made to buy Invincible.  As Invincible was available imediately the refit was cancelled and the crew ear marked  to bring the new HMAS Australia back from the UK.

 

When the UK decided to retain Invincible it was no longer economical to return Melbourne to service so the UK offered us Hermes as an interim platform until a new ship could be built, this offer was declined and the decission on a new carrier defered until after the election.....the rest is history.

 

The ideal, once the option of Invincible was gone, would have been to accept Hermes or a surplus US Essex class carrier to get us through  the 80's and 90's.  This breathing space could have been used to determine exactly what we did need in the light of the concepts proven in the Falklands conflict. 

 

A class of three helicopter cruisers similar in size and appearance to Japans Hyuga class helicopter carrying destroyers, fitted with AEGIS and large VLS magazines fore and aft the bridge as a replacement for the carrier and the DDG's anyone?

1.  Could Australia afford it?

2. Does it fit Australia's  needs. Remember these ASW ships only have basic point defenses and need bodyguard ships for ASW and AAW. For each Hyuga, you have to buy a Kongo. 

3. Barbels? Dutch Walruses were better. The US NT-37s, the Mark 45 ASTORs, and their associated  fire control systems were not that good. 

3. Barbels? Dutch Walruses were better. The US NT-37s, the Mark 45 ASTORs, and their associated  fire control systems were not that good. 

 

1. Yes, a fleet consisting of a carrier, three DDG, 10 FFG and 6 SSG was budgeted for the 80's and 90's.  Economic reforms actually improved Australias financial situation in the 80's, what changed was the political will, which saw the ADF reshaped to fit the Defence of Australia policy.  Replacing the carrier and the 3 DDG's with three large, through deck, helicopter carrying destroyers would be affordable and result in a crew saving.

 

2. These are large hulls so working in AEGIS and a pair of 32, 48 or even 64 cell VLS would not be an issue.  We would have our high end ASW and Air Warfare capabilities combined in one hull, leaving the FFG's as perfectly adequate escorts.

 

3. The Walrus was the better sub but EB could have quite easily come up with an improved Barbel using USN systems had we asked for it.

1. a. In the 1980s the Invincibles were the best helo-carriers that money could buy. Nevertheless those were compromised designs that were optimized for  VSTOL jets. Even at that they were undersized and lacked a good area defense capability.