Would Australia have been better off buying a new Leander to replace Adelaide and three new Amphion-subclass cruisers instead of buying secondhand ships?
Short answerThe premise is challenged because the ships were nearly new. The stronger criticism is that Australia should have accepted Adelaide's limited value and acquired more modern cruisers.
NotesSydney was purchased while still on the building blocks. The other two ships' early Royal Navy service is recalled less certainly, but Australia was acquiring nearly new vessels. The Leanders receive a mixed assessment: small for trade protection against a major threat, yet larger than ideal for some fleet work. Enough ships on the Australian and Far Eastern stations could threaten Japanese merchant traffic and force heavier Japanese cruisers away from other duties. They should also be able to defeat converted merchant raiders, with Sydney's loss acknowledged as an exception. The alternative proposed is to recognize Adelaide's limited usefulness and obtain more modern cruisers. Their later Mediterranean performance is linked to the Royal Navy's investment in 6-inch cruisers.