Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[Rule of cool]

Keeping one squadron is hardly cost effective from a support perspective. Moreover, you do realise that the RAAF didn't just have pilots sitting around doing nothing don't you. As I said, to keep the Phantoms would means cutting somewhere else.

Given the appalling track record of timely acquisition during the Cold War holding onto the best tactical fighter in the world addresses a bigger problem than sustainment cost in the short term and immediate pilot shortage. The RAAF didn't want the Phantom to slow the new tactical fighter project, but that project went slow anyway, so the RAAF having Phantoms in the interim is a better outcome in hindsight than what RAAF planners hoped would happen by ditching the Phantom.

 

[Caryina2642]

Given the appalling track record of timely acquisition during the Cold War holding onto the best tactical fighter in the world addresses a bigger problem than sustainment cost in the short term and immediate pilot shortage. The RAAF didn't want the Phantom to slow the new tactical fighter project, but that project went slow anyway, so the RAAF having Phantoms in the interim is a better outcome in hindsight than what RAAF planners hoped would happen by ditching the Phantom.

Is Definitely a better outcome, as the RAAF C\combat power doesn't shrink then

 

[Rule of cool]

If only the army had implement this,, though without doing pentropic plan would have been nice

There's a paper somewhere on the internet that proposes that the pentropic experiment was a power play by the Regulars to get primacy over the CMF who had played such a key roles in WW1 and WW2 but were looking increasingly unlikely to be deployed in the Cold War. If true it's a shame the CMF had to be crushed in the process, as they might have been used instead of introducing conscription.

 

[Caryina2642]

There's a paper somewhere on the internet that proposes that the pentropic experiment was a power play by the Regulars to get primacy over the CMF who had played such a key roles in WW1 and WW2 but were looking increasingly unlikely to be deployed in the Cold War. If true it's a shame the CMF had to be crushed in the process, as they might have been used instead of introducing conscription.

Would not surprise me at all there. The regs really do not like the CMF at all, especially during that time. I agree with the pentropic didn't gut the CMF it would have allowed the army to deploy to Vietnam with out conscription. I would have put more money into the CMF to bring them up to standard and then use them for our requirements in the far east strategic reserve in Malaysia

 

[Rule of cool]

I'd like to see a better organisational change with the end of conscription to the CMF, shrinking of the CMF and increasing the size of the Regs in the late 50s to the mid 60s, but can't really see how it stimulates the acquisition of new kit. Apart from not fitting the Centurion with 105mm L7 gun in line with Britain in 1960 and not using the Wheeled British AFVs Australia picked some good kit in the 60s: M113 is a great APC, Mirage III is better than the F104, F111 is unmatched, DDGs and Type 12 Frigates are great.

If I were to write an alternate history of Cold War Australia it would be pretty boring, it would have a lot of lines on org charts and very little different kit.

 

[Caryina2642]

I'd like to see a better organisational change with the end of conscription to the CMF, shrinking of the CMF and increasing the size of the Regs in the late 50s to the mid 60s, but can't really see how it stimulates the acquisition of new kit. Apart from not fitting the Centurion with 105mm L7 gun in line with Britain in 1960 and not using the Wheeled British AFVs Australia picked some good kit in the 60s: M113 is a great APC, Mirage III is better than the F104, F111 is unmatched, DDGs and Type 12 Frigates are great.

If I were to write an alternate history of Cold War Australia it would be pretty boring, it would have a lot of lines on org charts and very little different kit.

Organisational change can usually lead to equipment change
105mm of Centurion, yes should have been done (In 52 there was plans to raise a 2nd Armoured Regiment in Sydney)
Modified County class instead of Charles F. Adams, if the POMs allowed an all steam variant. This would be a beast of a ship for the RAN, Tartar, Ikara & 3 Wessex Helos, Probably would have Allowed more Fighters on Melbourne cause you could move some helos to the DDG's
1st Div Recce Regiment makes sense
Maybe A-5C for 66 employment then a modified F-111F in the 70's
How close was the SAAB-35 Draken coming to beating the Mirage III?
I would have liked to seen 24 C-130A Hercules brought instead of 12 so both 36 & 38 sqn C-47 Dakotas get replaced
In 1962 the Government order 12 DHC-4 Caribous & 8x CH-47 Chinooks, Chinooks order doesn't get canned, earlier chinooks
Was the Avon engine a better engine for the Mirage III in Australian conditions? and what about putting the Aden cannon instead of the French one in it?
Mirage III brought with IFR capability and tankers brought to extend combat range
M551 Sheridan or CVRT for cavalry regiments

 

[Rule of cool]

A lot of stuff in there, but its in my favourite era for getting Australian kit.

Organisational change can usually lead to equipment change

It certainly can, I wonder if a single Minister of Defence would have had anything to say about re-roling Melbourne into an ASW carrier with no ability to strike targets ashore in support of the Army.

105mm of Centurion, yes should have been done (In 52 there was plans to raise a 2nd Armoured Regiment in Sydney)

The 2nd AR Nucleus sqn became the 3rd sqn of 1 AR in 1955. 1 AR personnel from A sqn were used to form the Reg sqns in the 2 CMF Recce regiments and presumably the same people would be used to stand up the Recce regt, leaving 1 AR with 2 sqns still.

Maybe A-5C for 66 employment then a modified F-111F in the 70's

That was the Hancock mission's recommendation, but I'd suspect they'd last into the mid 80s.

How close was the SAAB-35 Draken coming to beating the Mirage III?

Dunno, but think the Mirage III was a more mature aircraft when the decision was made in 1960. The first 40 Drakkens lacked a radar upon entering service and the next 65 used the same Cyrano II of the Mirage.

I would have liked to seen 24 C-130A Hercules brought instead of 12 so both 36 & 38 sqn C-47 Dakotas get replaced

That's bad procurement practice to retire kit with useful service life left in it. The Hercules was a huge leap forward for the RAAF, standing up a single sqn makes its adoption far easier and doesn't leave a capability gap if the integration is difficult or prolonged.

In 1962 the Government order 12 DHC-4 Caribous & 8x CH-47 Chinooks, Chinooks order doesn't get canned, earlier chinooks

The problem with that order was that the CH47A wouldn't be delivered until 1971. Given that 9 year delivery schedule cancelling the order and buying more Caribous and UH1s wasn't a bad decision. If the 1962 order could have been delivered in 3 or 4 years like the 1970 order it would have been a great decision.

In any case I think the Army-RAAF disagreement about Caribous and Chinooks would be exactly the sort of thing a single Minister of Defence could make a decision on to reduce delay due to arguments.

Was the Avon engine a better engine for the Mirage III in Australian conditions? and what about putting the Aden cannon instead of the French one in it?

In the end I think it was a wash, the Avon didn't provide any advantage that would warrant the non-standard engine being fitted. Without a clear advantage going non-standard is asking for trouble.

Mirage III brought with IFR capability and tankers brought to extend combat range

One great advantage the Mirage had over the F104 was it's ability to use the 6,000' runways in the region. These runways in our region lacked a lot of advanced facilities, like pressure refueling manifolds that Israel had at its bases hat allowed the use of sinlge point, pressure refueling. Our Mirages had unpressurised, multi-point refueling so they could be refueled by trucks, but this meant they couldn't be fitted for IFR probes which plumb into single point pressure refueling systems.

M551 Sheridan or CVRT for cavalry regiments

In the Australian trials it threw tracks a lot and the Army was terrified of the ammo. In combat in Vietnam the big gun was very powerful but it was unreliable and as vulnerable as an M113 to RPGs and mines.

In any case the Sheridan was looked at under the same requirement for an air portable AFV to fight in S.E.A. jungles. Keeping the wheeled AFVs and not being so reluctant to deploy them and tanks into S.E.A. wold pretty much eliminate the Sheridan requirement.

 

[Caryina2642]

A lot of stuff in there, but its in my favourite era for getting Australian kit.

Its definitely is good period for Australian kit

It certainly can, I wonder if a single Minister of Defence would have had anything to say about re-roling Melbourne into an ASW carrier with no ability to strike targets ashore in support of the Army.

I say most likely it would

The 2nd AR Nucleus sqn became the 3rd sqn of 1 AR in 1955. 1 AR personnel from A sqn were used to form the Reg sqns in the 2 CMF Recce regiments and presumably the same people would be used to stand up the Recce regt, leaving 1 AR with 2 sqns still.

Fair enough, we had enough tanks for two under strength AR's or 1 over strength AR?

That's bad procurement practice to retire kit with useful service life left in it. The Hercules was a huge leap forward for the RAAF, standing up a single sqn makes its adoption far easier and doesn't leave a capability gap if the integration is difficult or prolonged.

Yeah but in hind sight it does make more sense with the massive capability the hercules has over the ww2 dakotas

The problem with that order was that the CH47A wouldn't be delivered until 1971. Given that 9 year delivery schedule cancelling the order and buying more Caribous and UH1s wasn't a bad decision. If the 1962 order could have been delivered in 3 or 4 years like the 1970 order it would have been a great decision.

In any case I think the Army-RAAF disagreement about Caribous and Chinooks would be exactly the sort of thing a single Minister of Defence could make a decision on to reduce delay due to arguments.

I believe a 1970 in service date was what the RAAF planned for, the only reason i say this is cause an earlier chinook by might keep the AH-1 buy on the table in the 70s, so the two don't have to complete
Oh definitely a single defence minster would solve most inter service rivalry at the time

In the end I think it was a wash, the Avon didn't provide any advantage that would warrant the non-standard engine being fitted. Without a clear advantage going non-standard is asking for trouble.

I only suggest it 1. for commonality with the Canberra's and 2. I've read that the mirages struggled in the tropic heat and that they wouldn't have with a more powerful engine

One great advantage the Mirage had over the F104 was it's ability to use the 6,000' runways in the region. These runways in our region lacked a lot of advanced facilities, like pressure refueling manifolds that Israel had at its bases hat allowed the use of sinlge point, pressure refueling. Our Mirages had unpressurised, multi-point refueling so they could be refueled by trucks, but this meant they couldn't be fitted for IFR probes which plumb into single point pressure refueling systems.

That's a good point. But how hard would it be to build the infrastructure for the pressurized refueling to allow IFR? would be just adding a hi pressure fuel pump to the trucks or more?

Dunno, but think the Mirage III was a more mature aircraft when the decision was made in 1960. The first 40 Drakkens lacked a radar upon entering service and the next 65 used the same Cyrano II of the Mirage.

Fair enough. Though by 1964 when the Mirages entered service the Draken would have radar than? I only mentioned the draken cause looking at the paper stats there the same if not slightly better than the Mirage III, which is why i brought it up

n the Australian trials it threw tracks a lot and the Army was terrified of the ammo. In combat in Vietnam the big gun was very powerful but it was unreliable and as vulnerable as an M113 to RPGs and mines.

In any case the Sheridan was looked at under the same requirement for an air portable AFV to fight in S.E.A. jungles. Keeping the wheeled AFVs and not being so reluctant to deploy them and tanks into S.E.A. wold pretty much eliminate the Sheridan requirement.

Fair enough, i wonder how hard it would have been to put a 76mm or 90mm gun in the M551? What about Australia joining the development of the CVRT with Britain early to get a light tank for our specifications

 

[Caryina2642]

I wonder what the effect of the RAN going with the modified county class would have instead of the Perths?

 

[Caryina2642]

That was the Hancock mission's recommendation, but I'd suspect they'd last into the mid 80s.

Yeah and i like it just for an earlier in service date than 1973
Probably but by than theres nothing really to replace them with over than B-1B and theres no way Australias getting them
That's why i said a modified F-111F along the lines of the F-111C that enter service in the late 70s/early 80s. Ordering it in the early 70s being the production is closed

 

[Pirate Pete]

I know this pre-dates the period under discussion here, but…If it had come anywhere near to fruition it would no doubt have had more than some influence on plans later…

 

[Caryina2642]

I know this pre-dates the period under discussion here, but…If it had come anywhere near to fruition it would no doubt have had more than some influence on plans later…

Ive been reading this all afternoon, bloody interesting read. does provide some good what ifs

 

[Caryina2642]

One thing i think from that document is australia should have built the 10x Boom defence vessels (Probably based off HMAS Kimbla), 12x Minesweepers (Based off the ton class) & 30x seaward defence boats (Just an earlier attack class) to build up the coastal forces of the RAN which would have been handing in southeast asia conflicts

 

[Pioneer]

Caryina2642 said:
Maybe A-5C for 66 employment then a modified F-111F in the 70's

Rule of Cool said:
That was the Hancock mission's recommendation, but I'd suspect they'd last into the mid 80s.

The last F-111F was produced in 1976.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

The last F-111F was produced in 1976.

Regards
Pioneer

Cheers Mate
So no later than 1975 could it be ordered basically

 

[Pioneer]

Cheers Mate
So no later than 1975 could it be ordered basically

Yes, I would agree with that!
Of course, at that time, would it be safe to assume that the F-111F was the definitive derivative of the F-111 series?
I guess the Australian Minister of Defence would be able to ask the question of the USAF!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

Yes, I would agree with that!
Of course, at that time, would it be safe to assume that the F-111F was the definitive derivative of the F-111 series?
I guess the Australian Minister of Defence would be able to ask the question of the USAF!

Regards
Pioneer

Yeah it was, it was the variant with the most modern avionics and best engines.
Would you do the same modifications as the f111c longer wings ans stronger landing gear or just order the base f111f

 

[Pioneer]

Yeah it was, it was the variant with the most modern avionics and best engines.
Would you do the same modifications as the f111c longer wings ans stronger landing gear or just order the base f111f

No, I'd just order the standard F-111F, straight off the production line!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Volkodav]

If I recall what I read many years back, it may have been in one of Stewart Wilson's books, to retain the F-4 would have required shrinking the Mirage force from 4 to 3 squadrons.

This is what ended up happening when the Mirage replacement program was deferred. I believe this was explained as a requirement to extend the Mirage fleet until a suitable multi-role aircraft would become available in the late 70s, early 80s.

I suspect it was more about the global economy and the perception that the level of threat in the region was declining. There was a massive contraction of the army at this time, and many navy projects were deferred or scaled back as well.

 

[Rule of cool]

Yeah and i like it just for an earlier in service date than 1973
Probably but by than theres nothing really to replace them with over than B-1B and theres no way Australias getting them
That's why i said a modified F-111F along the lines of the F-111C that enter service in the late 70s/early 80s. Ordering it in the early 70s being the production is closed

The Tornado, with tankers, is a good candidate, or the Strike Eagle a bit later.

 

[Rule of cool]

If I recall what I read many years back, it may have been in one of Stewart Wilson's books, to retain the F-4 would have required shrinking the Mirage force from 4 to 3 squadrons.

This is what ended up happening when the Mirage replacement program was deferred. I believe this was explained as a requirement to extend the Mirage fleet until a suitable multi-role aircraft would become available in the late 70s, early 80s.

I suspect it was more about the global economy and the perception that the level of threat in the region was declining. There was a massive contraction of the army at this time, and many navy projects were deferred or scaled back as well.

Austalia gifted Indonesia 23 ex RAAF CAC Sabres to Indonesia in 1973, a mere 7 years after Australia was fighting Indonesia in cross border raids in Borneo. This is how much the threat had changed, Indonesia went from confronting Australia with a large array of advanced Soviet kit to accepting a gift of obsolete fighters from their previous enemy.

This is why I focus on the 60s as the time to get good kit, or to make changes to facilitate good kit being acquired later.

 

[Rule of cool]

I wonder what the effect of the RAN going with the modified county class would have instead of the Perths?

The Counties in RN service had 471 crew while the Perth's in RAN service had 333. I assume the RAN could economise on crew; they could ditch the ~50 command staff but these larger crews would put a strain on RAN manpower at the same time as people want to buy a big, manpower-heavy aircraft carrier.

 

[Rule of cool]

Fair enough. Though by 1964 when the Mirages entered service the Draken would have radar than? I only mentioned the draken cause looking at the paper stats there the same if not slightly better than the Mirage III, which is why i brought it up

In 1960 France was a medium world power with experience supporting export customers of high-end military kit and with direct interests in many parts of the world. Sweden was a well-armed but tiny country which was very squeamish about customer using their kit, particularly in faraway places that Sweden could have an 'academic' rather than real interest in supporting or opposing.

In other words, they denied ammo for our Carl Gustav RCLs for use in Vietnam so there's no way they're a good supplier of fighters regardless of how good these fighters are.

 

[Caryina2642]

The Tornado, with tankers, is a good candidate, or the Strike Eagle a bit later.

True but there not on the level of the f-111, thats i why i suggest an order before the f-111 production finishes

The Counties in RN service had 471 crew while the Perth's in RAN service had 333. I assume the RAN could economise on crew; they could ditch the ~50 command staff but these larger crews would put a strain on RAN manpower at the same time as people want to buy a big, manpower-heavy aircraft carrier.

Thats is true but it does offer more capability and room to grew than the perths did

In 1960 France was a medium world power with experience supporting export customers of high-end military kit and with direct interests in many parts of the world. Sweden was a well-armed but tiny country which was very squeamish about customer using their kit, particularly in faraway places that Sweden could have an 'academic' rather than real interest in supporting or opposing.

In other words, they denied ammo for our Carl Gustav RCLs for use in Vietnam so there's no way they're a good supplier of fighters regardless of how good these fighters are.

fair enoungh, i was just thinking of other options

 

[Pioneer]

The Tornado, with tankers, is a good candidate, or the Strike Eagle a bit later.

The Tornado IDS's would need a lot of tanker support!
Yes, given the choice, I'd probably opt for the later Strike Eagle, given it's FAST pack and self-escorting capabilities. It would be interesting seeing RAAF F-15E's with four AGM-84's hanging off them.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

That's a good point. But how hard would it be to build the infrastructure for the pressurized refueling to allow IFR? would be just adding a hi pressure fuel pump to the trucks or more?

I believe the issue arises when the RAAF moves away from Air Force 'bases' to various other strips in the region and having to use what's there. IIUC the ability to use 6,000' strips was a key advantage over the F104, which IIRC needed 8,000', meaning the Mirage could access many more strips in the region, even if only for diversion, transit or short-term dispersal. If you limit the Mirage to airfields where specialised pressure refuelling trucks are pre-positioned, you go back to the lack of flexibility of the F104.

I think a wide range of accessible strips and IFR will have to wait until the Mirage's replacement, when at the very least airfield development will have improved to give more airstrip options to the RAAF.

i wonder how hard it would have been to put a 76mm or 90mm gun in the M551?

I believe such guns were trialled but not adopted by the US. The issue with the Sheridan is its dual role of Recce AFV for Armoured/Mechanised divisions and being the primary/only Armour and Anti-tank for air-mobile divisions. This means it had to have a weapon powerful enough to knock out tanks while being light enough to be highly mobile on the ground and in the air. Without the anti-tank role, the M551 likely could have been fitted with a ~90mm gun for counter-recce and skirmishing and been quite successful in that role as expectations would have been managed.

I only suggest it 1. for commonality with the Canberra's and 2. I've read that the mirages struggled in the tropic heat and that they wouldn't have with a more powerful engine

Going with the Atar meant having to buy a whole new set of metric tools, which meant the cost advantage was reduced. You're right about the Atar 9C struggling with full intercept loads on hot days, but apparently the Avon didn't offer much improvement. The RAAF looked at the Atar 9K10 as used by the Mirage IV, but this hadn't flown by the decision date, so the 9C was selected.

Here's the book.

 

[Caryina2642]

I believe the issue arises when the RAAF moves away from Air Force 'bases' to various other strips in the region and having to use what's there. IIUC the ability to use 6,000' strips was a key advantage over the F104, which IIRC needed 8,000', meaning the Mirage could access many more strips in the region, even if only for diversion, transit or short-term dispersal. If you limit the Mirage to airfields where specialised pressure refuelling trucks are pre-positioned, you go back to the lack of flexibility of the F104.

I think a wide range of accessible strips and IFR will have to wait until the Mirage's replacement, when at the very least airfield development will have improved to give more airstrip options to the RAAF.


I believe such guns were trialled but not adopted by the US. The issue with the Sheridan is its dual role of Recce AFV for Armoured/Mechanised divisions and being the primary/only Armour and Anti-tank for air-mobile divisions. This means it had to have a weapon powerful enough to knock out tanks while being light enough to be highly mobile on the ground and in the air. Without the anti-tank role, the M551 likely could have been fitted with a ~90mm gun for counter-recce and skirmishing and been quite successful in that role as expectations would have been managed.


Going with the Atar meant having to buy a whole new set of metric tools, which meant the cost advantage was reduced. You're right about the Atar 9C struggling with full intercept loads on hot days, but apparently the Avon didn't offer much improvement. The RAAF looked at the Atar 9K10 as used by the Mirage IV, but this hadn't flown by the decision date, so the 9C was selected.

Here's the book.

You could always store pressurised tankers at thoose airfields though I do get what you mean by wanting more flexibility
Fair enough the m551, I was just looking for a light tank in the era to fill out the original idea for the tracked cavalry regiments
Could the atar9k10 be added later on?

 

[Rule of cool]

You could always store pressurised tankers at thoose airfields though I do get what you mean by wanting more flexibility

This would mean putting an expensive pressure refueling trucks, assuming this is even a thing, at every 6,000' runway in Australia, offshore islands, New Zealand, PNG, Pacific Islands like Fiji and Tonga, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand.

The RAAF has C17/Tanker capable super-heavy tow motors costing $500k each at every RAAF base and some literally never tow a C17/Tanker in 15 years before being rotated (by sealift, they're too big for road and rail) to bases where they will see some use. This is an expensive way to deliver a capability that might be delivered another way.

Fair enough the m551, I was just looking for a light tank in the era to fill out the original idea for the tracked cavalry regiments

I think a 76-90mm gun in the Sheridan would suit the Army's stated needs if the other issues could be bought under control, although I'd question the validity of some of the assumption the Army used. For example, they assumed they'd be fighting in the jungles of S.E.A. and therefore wheeled AFVs and Tanks would be useless, indeed I think the Sheridan might have been seen as a replacement for the Centurion; if it entered service the Leopard wouldn't have been acquired. However, both US and Australian tanks preformed valuable tasks in Vietnam once resistance to their deployment was overcome and they entered combat.

Could the atar9k10 be added later on?

Not really, they needed to decide on a production spec, leaving options open causes delay and extra cost for possible advantages that may not actually materialise. The fundamental thing all militaries are looking for is kit that works, it better to have something that works in service than delay and add cost for something that might not work.

 

[Pioneer]

Going with the Atar meant having to buy a whole new set of metric tools, which meant the cost advantage was reduced. You're right about the Atar 9C struggling with full intercept loads on hot days, but apparently the Avon didn't offer much improvement. The RAAF looked at the Atar 9K10 as used by the Mirage IV, but this hadn't flown by the decision date, so the 9C was selected.

The Avon irrufutably had more thrust and better fuel efficiency - both attributes important in relation to Australia geographically.

I've read:

The Avon engine offered better fuel economy, enabling a non-stop ferry flight from Darwin to Singapore that was not possible with the Atar engine.

But alas, I think it's safe to say that the extra cost of the Avon engine and an inherent fear of having a standalone derivative of the Mirage IIIE both deterred and frightened government officials.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

The Avon irrufutably had more thrust and better fuel efficiency - both attributes important in relation to Australia geographically.

I've read:



But alas, I think it's safe to say that the extra cost of the Avon engine and an inherent fear of having a standalone derivative of the Mirage IIIE both deterred and frightened government officials.

Regards
Pioneer

Thats what I've read as well
Its bit stranger cause the government loves choping and changing things on different kit

Which was a better gin the British 30mm or he French 30mm

 

[Pioneer]

Thats what I've read as well
Its bit stranger cause the government loves choping and changing things on different kit

Which was a better gin the British 30mm or he French 30mm

I'm afraid I can't answer that question in relation to which was better - the DEFA or ADEN cannon.
I guess the main thing at the end of the day was both were reliable and hard hitting and importantly, both used the same 30mm ammo....given that Australia was manufacturing 30x30x113B DEFA rounds at its Footscray ammunition plant in Victoria.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

I'm afraid I can't answer that question in relation to which was better - the DEFA or ADEN cannon.
I guess the main thing at the end of the day was both were reliable and hard hitting and importantly, both used the same 30mm ammo....given that Australia was manufacturing 30x30x113B DEFA rounds at its Footscray ammunition plant in Victoria.

Regards
Pioneer

I thought we had to modify the cannons to except the left over Aden rounds?

 

[Pioneer]

I thought we had to modify the cannons to except the left over Aden rounds?

You could be right Caryina2642, Im oblivious to such detail.

 

[Rule of cool]

Thats what I've read as well

I've read:

As have I, but I don't think it's remotely true.

Darwin to Singapore in a straight line is about 1,800nm.

Initial deployments to Malaysia using 2 big ferry tanks were via Djuanda Indonesia to Butterworth, 2 legs of 1,100mn. Later ferry flights were via Bali to Singapore then Butterworth, cutting the 2 legs down to 1,000nm each. These 1000nm leg were close to the limit of the Mirages ferry range.
Page 74.

If the Avon could boost the ferry range of a small, single-engine fighter from about 1,100nm to 1,800nm it would represent a boost in performance so vast that SNEMCA would never sell another Atar again.

However apparently the performance difference between the Atar 9C and Avon Mk67 were not enough to make the Avon installation worthwhile.
Page 9.

 

[GK. Dundas]

You could be right Caryina2642, Im oblivious to such detail.

You shouldn't have to modify anything thing they basically used the same round.

 

[Caryina2642]

You shouldn't have to modify anything thing they basically used the same round.

I've read reports that they had to use the left over ammunition, cause at the same time the French were treating sanctions, I think it was one of the reasons. The othere reason was supply australian built parts to Israel

As have I, but I don't think it's remotely true.

Darwin to Singapore in a straight line is about 1,800nm.

Initial deployments to Malaysia using 2 big ferry tanks were via Djuanda Indonesia to Butterworth, 2 legs of 1,100mn. Later ferry flights were via Bali to Singapore then Butterworth, cutting the 2 legs down to 1,000nm each. These 1000nm leg were close to the limit of the Mirages ferry range.
Page 74.

If the Avon could boost the ferry range of a small, single-engine fighter from about 1,100nm to 1,800nm it would represent a boost in performance so vast that SNEMCA would never sell another Atar again.

However apparently the performance difference between the Atar 9C and Avon Mk67 were not enough to make the Avon installation worthwhile.
Page 9.

I would suspect it would increase ferry range though not to that level

 

[Caryina2642]

I probably should have called this thread alternate adf cold war procurements, cause we discussed nearly every decade

 

[Rule of cool]

I probably should have called this thread alternate adf cold war procurements, cause we discussed nearly every decade

The 70s onwards weren't a great time for Australian defence procurement, and the procurement of these decades are closely linked to earlier decisions.

 

[Caryina2642]

The 70s onwards weren't a great time for Australian defence procurement, and the procurement of these decades are closely linked to earlier decisions.

That is true the Good old butterfly effect really

 

[Rule of cool]

Was the COSC recommendation to get a 4th DDG and it's rejection by the Government in November 1964 tied up with the Voyager replacement?
Were the options:

1. replace Voyager with a 4th DDG, built in the US
2. replace Voyager with 2 River class DEs built in Australia

The COSC wanted option 1 but the Government chose option 2?

Or was the 4th DDG being recommended anyway and the Voyager was going to be replaced by 2 DEs anyway so the 4th DDG would have been an 'extra' ship?