Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[Volkodav]

Post 1957 DWP there was probably a few years where there were 5 cruisers in and out of commission but by 1960 or so the RN was playing with 3 cruisers with little prospect of increasing those numbers, since only 3 cruisers had been built after the war.

Plus, Belfast and Swiftsure. There were others in reserve as well, but these two were the most extensively modernised.

 

[Archibald]

Interesting thread. Jeanne d'arc with Tartar is interesting. V. Venetto too !

In the 1980s Argentina managed to fly Super Etendards out of 25 de Mayo, a Colossus/Majestic class.

Earlier in time (1961) India wanted BLC+Avon Etendard IVB for their carrier, also a Colossus/Majestic class.

Etendard IVB however had some problems with its BLC system.

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/etendard-ivb-the-odd-duck/11200

 

[Caryina2642]

The Battles are obsolescent by the late 50s and Tobruk had done a couple of war cruises in Korea so had done her work. However, keeping her in service would keep an active crew and hull on strength when the decision for a 4th DDG needed to be made. The people could point to the Tobruk and say it needed to be replaced.

Upgrading Darings with Tartar and Ikara proved to be too difficult, so they'll need to be replaced in the 70s.


Albion could be upgraded along the lines of Centaur, with a 6+ degree angled deck and a pair of 139' BS4 catapults. This would be better than the Melbourne; 2 catapults, another 4 knots of speed and a 50% larger CAG at the cost of much greater operating cost, larger crew and much larger rebuild cost compared to Melbourne's looming refit/rebuild.



It seems to be an expensive way of getting a carrier and FTT/training ship, although the carrier will be better.

What was the RN going to do for the 2nd Commando carrier, keep the Centaur?

If the Battles are obsolescent by the lates 50s i would argue that the darings and rivers would have been obsolescent as well. If the RAN gave the battles an upgrade like the RN FADE battles got they would still be handy into the 70s when they could be replaced the DDL.
As much as i love the idea of the Tartar and Ikara Daring i now believe that the Seacat and Ikara refit would have been handy especially where 4 county DLGs or 4 Adams DDGS are acquired.
Yeah Albion gets upgraded somthine along that lines. It is but its not really any different to Melbourne and Sydney Relationship in service, just albion has a bigger crew.
I would say centaur gets converted

 

[Volkodav]

Agreed, it would have been nice if waterhen was completed and tobruk repaired to bad out numbers, which i dont think is unrealistic with a slight increase in budjet and manpower. I think the Battles and darins could have been used untill the 70s when they get replaced by the DDL in my mind.
Yeah Albion got offered to the RAN as is in 1960/61 before she sailed home to the UK for conversion into a commando carrier, so she would need a rebuild but would offer bit more capabilty for the RAN.
That's why i say keep Melbourne in reserve as a FTT and Training Ship as well using her as a helicopter carrier when albion is in refit so the RAN still gets there money worth out of her.

Hermes was offered in 1968.

I am curious whether Victorious would have been an option, as she was scrapped after a fire late in her last refit, not because it was impossible or too expensive to repair her, but because the decision had already been made to get out of fixed-wing carrier aviation. She, although older than the Centaurs, was more capable, capable of operating into the 80s after her complete rebuild in the 50s.

 

[Caryina2642]

This is probably a rubbish idea, but here goes.

ITOL the RAAF bought Bloodhound Mk 1, which was operated by No. 30 Squadron from its reformation on 11th January 1961 until its third disbandment on 30th November 1968.

It was suggested, earlier in the thread, that the squadron would have survived into the 1980s had it re-equipped with the Bloodhound Mk 2. It was then speculated that the squadron would have re-equipped with the Improved Hawk in the 1980s because Patriot would have been prohibitively expensive.

AFAIK the plan was for 2 Bloodhound squadrons, with the second planned to defend Melbourne.

So, what if the second squadron was formed and both were re-equipped with Bloodhound Mk 2, but rather than being replaced by Hawk, they were replaced by Land Dart, the land SAM version of Sea Dart, which AFIAK was intended to replace Bloodhound Mk 2 in the RAF and Thunderbird Mk 2 in the British Army, but it was cancelled in the Mason Defence Review. IOTL the British Army withdrew Thunderbird from service in 1977 but Bloodhound remained in service with the RAF until 1991.

The trick ITTL was that Land Dart was a joint UK-Australia project between Hawker Siddeley Dynamics and Hawker de Havilland so the British don’t cancel it in the middle 1970s because the Australian Government is paying some of the R&D cost and the larger number of missiles reduces the production cost. Meanwhile, the Australian Government doesn't cancel it because some of it's being built in Australia and the loss of jobs if it was cancelled would lead to a loss of votes.

That’s probably wishful thinking by me. However, if it isn’t, would it increase the chances of the RAN buying Type 42 destroyers after the Light Destroyer was cancelled? AFAIK the RAN wanted to buy Type 42s but the Government made them buy American Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.

I dont mind this plan for bloodhound Mk.2 to be replace by land dart as it gets australia in the missile game earlier on.
Though i wonder what would happen if RAAF gets the 2 Bloodhound Sqns and the Army gets the Hawk (As planned) in the 60s. How would this effect the ADF going forward

 

[Caryina2642]

Hermes was offered in 1968.

I am curious whether Victorious would have been an option, as she was scrapped after a fire late in her last refit, not because it was impossible or too expensive to repair her, but because the decision had already been made to get out of fixed-wing carrier aviation. She, although older than the Centaurs, was more capable, capable of operating into the 80s after her complete rebuild in the 50s.

That is true though for hermes i think she needs to be offered when indonesia is still a threat, the same with victorious as well. Though with victorious i think she would be too run down to be an effective option for the RAN

 

[Volkodav]

That strikes me as far too innovative for the conservative RAN and ADF in general. In any case a well upgraded Melbourne was within Australia's capabilities and provides far more power than any ASW force.


How would that fare against the early 60s Indonesia and its influx of Soviet gear? I'd see that as a purely defensive force, not able to skirt into any real danger areas.

You need to remember that the RAAF and scientific advisors were of the opinion that subsonic combat aircraft were useless and hence Melbourne was not a viable CTOL platform. This was not just in the 60s, this was even after the Falklands War in 1982 where they completely ignored the performance of the Sea Harrier.

On paper, Melbourne, whether flying Skyhawks or Sea Venoms, was no match for Indonesia's Russian suppled airforce and fleet. A couple of missile armed escort/helicopter cruisers would have been more capable than the DDGs alone.

 

[Volkodav]

That is true though for hermes i think she needs to be offered when indonesia is still a threat, the same with victorious as well. Though with victorious i think she would be too run down to be an effective option for the RAN

Victorious was laid down in 1939, launched in 1940 and commissioned in 1941, she was less tha 30 years old when retired and easily had more than a decade of life left in her.

Although she had hard war service, she was never seriously damaged like her sisters, Illustrious and Formidable. Her modernisation in the 1950s was basically a full rebuild that went far beyond the initial planned scope, she was referred to as a fast Hermes type and was significantly more heavily built.

 

[Rule of cool]

If the Battles are obsolescent by the lates 50s i would argue that the darings and rivers would have been obsolescent as well. If the RAN gave the battles an upgrade like the RN FADE battles got they would still be handy into the 70s when they could be replaced the DDL.
As much as i love the idea of the Tartar and Ikara Daring i now believe that the Seacat and Ikara refit would have been handy especially where 4 county DLGs or 4 Adams DDGS are acquired.
Yeah Albion gets upgraded somthine along that lines. It is but its not really any different to Melbourne and Sydney Relationship in service, just albion has a bigger crew.
I would say centaur gets converted

Without seacat and Ikara the Darings and Rivers were obsolescent, but fitting these ships with these weapons is viable when it isn't with the Battles.

 

[Caryina2642]

Without seacat and Ikara the Darings and Rivers were obsolescent, but fitting these ships with these weapons is viable when it isn't with the Battles.

You can fit seacat to the battles, maybe not ikara but you could fit mk 32 torpedo tubes for ASW. Thats why i suggested the FADE refits that the RN did for 4 battles should have been done for the RAN, which would have kept viable

 

[Caryina2642]

You need to remember that the RAAF and scientific advisors were of the opinion that subsonic combat aircraft were useless and hence Melbourne was not a viable CTOL platform. This was not just in the 60s, this was even after the Falklands War in 1982 where they completely ignored the performance of the Sea Harrier.

On paper, Melbourne, whether flying Skyhawks or Sea Venoms, was no match for Indonesia's Russian suppled airforce and fleet. A couple of missile armed escort/helicopter cruisers would have been more capable than the DDGs alone.

i say they ignored the performance of the sea harrier to be able to keep getting tip of the spear equipment.
In a head on engagement Melbourne would probably not be able survive the Russian supplied Indonesia air force, thats the RAAF jobs. I would agure that Melbourne with escorts would be able to take on the Indonesia fleet as they had no SAMs vessels in the Fleet.
What is interesting that i would agrue Albion with Avon Powered Entendard or A-4 Skyhawks supported by E-1 Tracers would be able to deal with Indonesian Air force

 

[Rule of cool]

You can fit seacat to the battles, maybe not ikara but you could fit mk 32 torpedo tubes for ASW. Thats why i suggested the FADE refits that the RN did for 4 battles should have been done for the RAN, which would have kept viable

You can, but for a ship of that era it would be a waste of money, and would take resources from new construction. The RAN considered the Tobruk to not worth the expense of repair, which shows you its value in the overall scheme of managing the fleet.

Given Anzac was converted to a training ship in 1961, I doubt there Tobruk would have lasted much longer in active service if she wasn't hit, or was repaired.

 

[Volkodav]

i say they ignored the performance of the sea harrier to be able to keep getting tip of the spear equipment.
In a head on engagement Melbourne would probably not be able survive the Russian supplied Indonesia air force, thats the RAAF jobs. I would agure that Melbourne with escorts would be able to take on the Indonesia fleet as they had no SAMs vessels in the Fleet.
What is interesting that i would agrue Albion with Avon Powered Entendard or A-4 Skyhawks supported by E-1 Tracers would be able to deal with Indonesian Air force

I would like to see an Avon powered, CAC built, FJ4B Fury.

 

[Volkodav]

There were fast ASW conversions planned for the Battles and Darings in RN service. Where you had a Limbo and its magazine, you could fit Ikara. Seacat was designed to replace the STAAG mounts.

Additionally, the RN undertook initial investigations into fitting Tartar to Darings and Battles. Expensive, yes, but these were not old ships, they had much more potential life in them than the Ex USN FRAM destroyers that served in some cases into the 90s and 2000s. Italy (yes the Impavidos were built as DDG versions of the preceding Impetuosos), France and the US undertook a number of Tartar conversions of 1950s built destroyers.

I wonder how much money could have been saved converting the Battles and Darings into DDGs with Tartar and (maybe) Ikara, instead of buying the Perth Class? Maybe enough to have built six Rivers?

Another thought, had Melbourne been converted to a helicopter carrier, she would have stopped conventional flight operations in the early 60s, she would not have needed a destroyer as plane guard for flight operations. This means neither the Voyager nor the Frank E Evens collisions would have occurred.

 

[Archibald]

Victorious powerplant would be worn out by 1980. It needed a serious overhaul.
Obviously the four Centaurs were better than any Majestic /Colossus and India did wonders with Hermes.
Which brings a question. India was much poorer than Australia yet their navy in the 1980 had two carriers, one Majestic/Colossus plus Hermes.
Can Hermes indian service be transposed to Australia ? Manning, cost, maintenance...

 

[Rule of cool]

scientific advisors

Who were the scientific advisors? I know Lawrence Wackett had a lot of influence as head of CAC and certain scientists had a lot of sway in the US and UK at various times, but not any notable Australian scientists in the 50s and 60s with influence over Defence.

 

[Rule of cool]

Victorious powerplant would be worn out by 1980. It needed a serious overhaul.
Obviously the four Centaurs were better than any Majestic /Colossus and India did wonders with Hermes.
Which brings a question. India was much poorer than Australia yet their navy in the 1980 had two carriers, one Majestic/Colossus plus Hermes.
Can Hermes indian service be transposed to Australia ? Manning, cost, maintenance...

I'd suggest India has/had very different Purchasing Power Parity than Australia which make the manning and maintenance equations much different. India can afford to throw huge numbers of men at an old carrier when Australia cannot. In addition I suspect Australia and India have different standards of readiness, Australia has to meet NATO and other high standards in all sorts of areas whereas India does not. An old carrier being unavailable 50% of the time might be acceptable for India but not Australia.

 

[Rule of cool]

Interesting thread. Jeanne d'arc with Tartar is interesting. V. Venetto too !

In the 1980s Argentina managed to fly Super Etendards out of 25 de Mayo, a Colossus/Majestic class.

Earlier in time (1961) India wanted BLC+Avon Etendard IVB for their carrier, also a Colossus/Majestic class.

Etendard IVB however had some problems with its BLC system.

https://forum.warthunder.com/t/etendard-ivb-the-odd-duck/11200

Argentina's 25 de Mayo was the former Dutch Karel Doorman, which had the 145' BS4A catapult and 8.5 degree angled deck. The HMAS Melbourne's catapult was extended from 103' to 112' in 1971 but she retained her interim 5.5 degree angled deck. Vikrant was completed with 103' catapult and a 7.5 degree angled deck.

I think these details explain the different service lives of these carriers somewhat.

 

[H_K]

You need to remember that the RAAF and scientific advisors were of the opinion that subsonic combat aircraft were useless and hence Melbourne was not a viable CTOL platform. This was not just in the 60s, this was even after the Falklands War in 1982 where they completely ignored the performance of the Sea Harrier.

On paper, Melbourne, whether flying Skyhawks or Sea Venoms, was no match for Indonesia's Russian suppled airforce and fleet. A couple of missile armed escort/helicopter cruisers would have been more capable than the DDGs alone.

I think it was entirely possible to wipe out Indonesia's air force and navy, with the right offensive mindset and good training.

It would take a similar gutsy air raid as Israel in the Six Day War (1967), but on a much smaller scale, using carrier aircraft to disable the single long runways and aircraft lined up on the aprons at the 2 main Indonesian bomber bases on East Java (Madiun/Iswahjudi and Juanda).

The success factors would be the same: 1) The ability to maintain an element of surprise, with less than 5 minutes warning for carrier aircraft ingressing below radar coverage, 2) The vulnerability of the runways to just a few runway penetration bombs, 3) The vulnerability of bombers and fighters parked in neat rows in the congested apron areas, with no revetments or hangars, allowing these to be destroyed in just a few gun strafing passes, 4) The relative ineffectiveness of low altitude AAA to fast movers

Basically picture a strike of a dozen A-4s supported by 3 buddy tankers, with a Hi-Lo-Lo-Hi radius of 500 to 600nm (based on A-4F combat radius data)... each A-4 would carry 4-6 lightweight (150lb) runway penetration bombs and use guns/rockets against parked aircraft, with the guns also serving as a defensive weapon against Mig-17 interceptors. Split the strike shortly before going feet dry (as the 2 airbases are almost equidistant), with 6 A-4s hitting each runway and then reversing for a staffing pass. A combined strike by RAAF Canberras from the mainland would also be possible (Learmouth being ~900nm away with a 7,000ft runway).

I would rate the odds of success pretty high... in many ways a repeat of Operation Doolittle, but with the crews and aircraft being better able to defend themselves and able to return home. With the option of launching a second or third strike in the same day before retiring.

 

[Rule of cool]

Having Melbourne go head-to-head with TNI Tu16s was a very low probability scenario. IIUC Australian planning scenarios were to go it alone with Indonesia until the UK could reinforce, but in the 60s the RN had 2 carriers EoS as well as some Javelins, Hunters and Canberras in the FEAF. From 1964 there were detachments of V bombers of up to 16 aircraft rotated through Butterworth, these will also likely be tasked with countering the Tu 16s.

Comparing the Melbourne unfavourably against TNI Tu16s has some merit, but Melbourne was realistically the only thing the RAN could counter Tu16s with until the first 2 DDGs were commissioned and a major mid-life refit of the Melbourne is the RANs most realistic path to retain some anti Tu 16 capability.

 

[H_K]

Having Melbourne go head-to-head with TNI Tu16s was a very low probability scenario.

I would want a Centaur for the scenario I just described. The light fleets were too limited for any carrier raid scenario due to the single catapult bottleneck and limited size of a maximum effort alpha strike.

 

[Caryina2642]

I would want a Centaur for the scenario I just described. The light fleets were too limited for any carrier raid scenario due to the single catapult bottleneck and limited size of a maximum effort alpha strike.

I mean u could do it with the light fleets if sydney was modernised, but using albion would be a lot easier.
I would also suggest if the RAAF got vulcans and tankers like it wanted in the 50s this sort of first strike idea would become easier and more likely of a strategy

 

[Rule of cool]

This is probably a rubbish idea, but here goes.

ITOL the RAAF bought Bloodhound Mk 1, which was operated by No. 30 Squadron from its reformation on 11th January 1961 until its third disbandment on 30th November 1968.

It was suggested, earlier in the thread, that the squadron would have survived into the 1980s had it re-equipped with the Bloodhound Mk 2. It was then speculated that the squadron would have re-equipped with the Improved Hawk in the 1980s because Patriot would have been prohibitively expensive.

AFAIK the plan was for 2 Bloodhound squadrons, with the second planned to defend Melbourne.

So, what if the second squadron was formed and both were re-equipped with Bloodhound Mk 2, but rather than being replaced by Hawk, they were replaced by Land Dart, the land SAM version of Sea Dart, which AFIAK was intended to replace Bloodhound Mk 2 in the RAF and Thunderbird Mk 2 in the British Army, but it was cancelled in the Mason Defence Review. IOTL the British Army withdrew Thunderbird from service in 1977 but Bloodhound remained in service with the RAF until 1991.

The trick ITTL was that Land Dart was a joint UK-Australia project between Hawker Siddeley Dynamics and Hawker de Havilland so the British don’t cancel it in the middle 1970s because the Australian Government is paying some of the R&D cost and the larger number of missiles reduces the production cost. Meanwhile, the Australian Government doesn't cancel it because some of it's being built in Australia and the loss of jobs if it was cancelled would lead to a loss of votes.

That’s probably wishful thinking by me. However, if it isn’t, would it increase the chances of the RAN buying Type 42 destroyers after the Light Destroyer was cancelled? AFAIK the RAN wanted to buy Type 42s but the Government made them buy American Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates.

Something occurred to me reading this post. 30 sqn with Bloodhound Mk1 disbanded in November 1968, a year and a half after Indonesian had given permission for the RAAF to use their airspace and an airfield to allow a sqn of Mirages to transit from Australia to Malaysia in April 1967. That Indonesia was willing to assist Australia a mere 8 months after the Confrontation ended is indicative of the virtually non-existent air threat to mainland Australia by the time the Bloodhoud Mk1s were retired.

I'd like to see the Mk1 upgraded to Mk2, but that's in a large extent to utilise the structure set up for the Mk1 rather than any great threat to Australia that requires such a powerful SAM. It's a bit like keeping the British wheeled AFVs after 1965 and doing a major rebuild on the Melbourne, squeeze the maximum out of useful legacy capability, but the Bloodhounds wouldn't be much use in the Defence Self Reliance era post-Vietnam, and replacing them might be a waste of money.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Something occurred to me reading this post. 30 sqn with Bloodhound Mk1 disbanded in November 1968, a year and a half after Indonesian had given permission for the RAAF to use their airspace and an airfield to allow a sqn of Mirages to transit from Australia to Malaysia in April 1967. That Indonesia was willing to assist Australia a mere 8 months after the Confrontation ended is indicative of the virtually non-existent air threat to mainland Australia by the time the Bloodhound Mk1s were retired.

I'd like to see the Mk1 upgraded to Mk2, but that's in a large extent to utilise the structure set up for the Mk1 rather than any great threat to Australia that requires such a powerful SAM. It's a bit like keeping the British wheeled AFVs after 1965 and doing a major rebuild on the Melbourne, squeeze the maximum out of useful legacy capability, but the Bloodhounds wouldn't be much use in the Defence Self Reliance era post-Vietnam, and replacing them might be a waste of money.

I expected my suggestion to go down like a lead balloon. So fair enough.

What do you think about my suggestion that that the RAN buys Type 42 destroyers after the DDL was cancelled instead of the Patrol Frigates? I suspect, not very much, because when I did a search of the thread for messages about the DDL, there were several pages of them and they seemed to overwhelmingly express the opinion that the DDL shouldn't have been cancelled in the first place.

 

[Volkodav]

Who were the scientific advisors? I know Lawrence Wackett had a lot of influence as head of CAC and certain scientists had a lot of sway in the US and UK at various times, but not any notable Australian scientists in the 50s and 60s with influence over Defence.

I would have to dig into the Australian Achieves for the papers on the carrier replacement programs. I cannot recall the individual's name, but he was a Commonwealth guided weapons expert who had been involved in many missile trials at Woomera from the 50s onwards and ended up at PM&C as an assistant to the chief defence scientist and advisor to the government on defence science.

He was the one telling the government that sonar buoys dropped by P-3s were superior to helicopter and ship-based sonars and made both obsolete, that land-based combat aircraft were superior to the Sea Harrier, so there was no point buying them, and that additional P-3Cs were more critical to Australia's defence than maintaining a navy that could operate away from RAAF air cover.

 

[Rule of cool]

I expected my suggestion to go down like a lead balloon. So fair enough.

What do you think about my suggestion that that the RAN buys Type 42 destroyers after the DDL was cancelled instead of the Patrol Frigates? I suspect, not very much, because when I did a search of the thread for messages about the DDL, there were several pages of them and they seemed to overwhelmingly express the opinion that the DDL shouldn't have been cancelled in the first place.

IIRC the RAN would have preferred the Type 42 with US sensors and weapons and considered the OHPs 'second rate escorts".

The question is is such a thing possible? How big is the US Mk54 5" gun compared to the UK Mk 8 4.5" gun, or would the OHP's 3" gun be needed? Could the US Mk26 twin missile launcher fit instead of the Sea Dart Launcher?

 

[Volkodav]

Argentina's 25 de Mayo was the former Dutch Karel Doorman, which had the 145' BS4A catapult and 8.5 degree angled deck. The HMAS Melbourne's catapult was extended from 103' to 112' in 1971 but she retained her interim 5.5 degree angled deck. Vikrant was completed with 103' catapult and a 7.5 degree angled deck.

I think these details explain the different service lives of these carriers somewhat.

If I recall correctly, Super Etendard was never achieved FOC and may not have achieved IOC on 25 de Mayo, they were land based during their successful use in the Falklands. This raises questions as to the viability of further upgrades to Melbourne being good value for money.

Personally, I would have loved Australia to have had a larger, more viable carrier from the outset, something that could have served as successfully as Melbourne did, but have offered such a level of capability that no sane politician would conceive not retaining the capability. We didn't so what we had was forced to endure for a decade past when it should have been replaced and then wasn't replaced.

This was an opportunity cost that impacted other key capabilities, i.e. the additional Skyhawks and Trackers were at the expense of the 7th and 8th Oberons. There was no fourth DDG, multiple necessary projects did not proceed because of the resources required to maintain the carrier.

The same could be said for the F-111. It was an awesome capability, but its opportunity cost was phenomenal. I am glad the RAAF is not getting B-21s because they would be the same, an expensive capability that would require other necessary capabilities to be run down. Imagine if the RAAF replaced Canberra with Phantoms, Vigilantes or even something cheaper such as the A-7? What could the extra money have been spent on?

 

[Volkodav]

I would want a Centaur for the scenario I just described. The light fleets were too limited for any carrier raid scenario due to the single catapult bottleneck and limited size of a maximum effort alpha strike.

The RN did a study in the 1960s looking at replacing the existing air group with one centred around 30 Skyhawks. It apparently was an attractive proposal that would have provided more, not less, capability.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I don't mind this plan for Bloodhound Mk.2 to be replace by land dart as it gets Australia in the missile game earlier on.
Though i wonder what would happen if RAAF gets the 2 Bloodhound Sqns and the Army gets the Hawk (As planned) in the 60s. How would this effect the ADF going forward

AFIAK the AA battery that was to have got the Hawk eventually got 20 Rapier Blindfire systems and was expanded into a regiment.

If the original plan to equip it with Hawks had gone ahead, I suspect that they would have been replaced by the same missile that replaced the Bloodhound ITTL, which I want to be Land Dart, but I suspect that it would have been Improved Hawk.

 

[Volkodav]

IIRC the RAN would have preferred the Type 42 with US sensors and weapons and considered the OHPs 'second rate escorts".

The question is is such a thing possible? How big is the US Mk54 5" gun compared to the UK Mk 8 4.5" gun, or would the OHP's 3" gun be needed? Could the US Mk26 twin missile launcher fit instead of the Sea Dart Launcher?

Mk-13 has a much smaller footprint than Sea Dart and the Mk-8 is comparable to the Mk-45.

I have an incomplete model of an RAN Type 42 somewhere; I stuffed the paint up and need to redo it.

It had a Mk-45 5", a Mk-13 with appropriate directors for SM-1 and i built a new hanger for two Sea King, similar to ARA Hercules in her current configuration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Hércules_(B-52)By Colección Martín Otero - In the Atlantic South, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5" title="Creative Commons Attribution 2.5">CC BY 2.5</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1866294">Link</a>

While quite doable, it was a bit wasteful too, as Sea Dart was a superior missile to SM-1MR.

My WIFF that I have yet to attempt is an evolved Type 22 with Tartar (probably Mk-13, maybe Mk-26) inserted in a hull plug between the funnel and hangar. Either retaining Seawolf, or perhaps replacing it with a Mk-29 and Sea Sparrow. This would have been instead of DDL / FFG-07. A further development would have been a Batch 2 built in the 90s with Mk-41s replacing both the Mk-13/26 and the Mk-29.

In this same AU a Type 21 with US systems, i.e. Mk-29 Sea Sparrow and Harpoon, would have been built as a GPF/Sloop, supplementing the high-end combatants. There would have been no patrol boats in this scenario, rather a small force of reserve training vessels and a couple of FAC for training and operational evaluation / trials.

 

[Volkodav]

AFIAK the AA battery that was to have got the Hawk eventually got 20 Rapier Blindfire systems and was expanded into a regiment.

If the original plan to equip it with Hawks had gone ahead, I suspect that they would have been replaced by the same missile that replaced the Bloodhound ITTL, which I want to be Land Dart, but I suspect that it would have been Improved Hawk.

Another part of my ever-evolving AU is that instead of the RAAF getting Bloodhound, they instead operated two squadrons of modified Lightnings. Hawk was acquired by the army, and the capability was retained, being continually upgraded, until NAASAM was acquired in a JV with Norway.

 

[Caryina2642]

One thing about not building the DDL ships is that the proposed and built ships dont have nearly the same capabilty as the proposed DDL, the closest is the us armed Type 42 then still the DDL is still a lot better destroyer
Better armed and has 2 vs 1 helicopter

 

[Caryina2642]

AFIAK the AA battery that was to have got the Hawk eventually got 20 Rapier Blindfire systems and was expanded into a regiment.

If the original plan to equip it with Hawks had gone ahead, I suspect that they would have been replaced by the same missile that replaced the Bloodhound ITTL, which I want to be Land Dart, but I suspect that it would have been Improved Hawk.

Possibly that is one way that it goes but i see it that the RAAF would upgrade its Bloodhounds to Mk.2 standard and would keep them till the 90s most likely, while the army upgrades its HAWKS to the Improved HAWK keeps them till the 90s most likely. Then what happens im not sure

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Another part of my ever-evolving AU is that instead of the RAAF getting Bloodhound, they instead operated two squadrons of modified Lightnings. Hawk was acquired by the army, and the capability was retained, being continually upgraded, until NAASAM was acquired in a JV with Norway.

What were the modifications to the Lightnings? My guess is that they were built to the same standard as the Saudi Lightnings.

As 110 Mirage IIIs were originally purchased to equip 4 squadrons and an OCU, my guess is that your ever evolving AU has 55 modified Lightnings built to equip the 2 squadrons plus a training flight.

Having 55 Lightnings with Avon engines strengthens the case for purchasing Avon-Mirages instead of the OTL Atar-Mirages, especially if the Avon engines for the Lightnings are built in Australia.

However, if I were you, I'd evolve your AU one step further and buy 165 modified Lightnings (and no Mirages) to equip 6 squadrons and a 50% larger No. 2 OCU.

Although if you're having 2 extra fighter squadrons instead of the Bloodhound squadrons, you'll probably have to expand the flying training schools to provide the extra aircrew, which will at least mean more MB.326Hs and possibly more Winjeels and Airtrainers.

 

[Volkodav]

One thing about not building the DDL ships is that the proposed and built ships dont have nearly the same capabilty as the proposed DDL, the closest is the us armed Type 42 then still the DDL is still a lot better destroyer
Better armed and has 2 vs 1 helicopter

DDL in its final iteration was great, but by then, it had become a Daring replacement rather than a GP supplement to them. The Amazon, as a JV with the RN and with US systems, was seriously considered instead of an earlier DDL design, i.e. helicopters but not Tartar, rather Seacat or Sea Sparrow. They would have been GP vessels in the manner of Sloops, supplementing the three DDGs, three DDs and four/six DEs.

There was still a need to replace the DDs and DEs in the 80s to early 90s, but a sloop type capability would have completely transformed the RAN in the 70s.

 

[Caryina2642]

DDL in its final iteration was great, but by then, it had become a Daring replacement rather than a GP supplement to them. The Amazon, as a JV with the RN and with US systems, was seriously considered instead of an earlier DDL design, i.e. helicopters but not Tartar, rather Seacat or Sea Sparrow. They would have been GP vessels in the manner of Sloops, supplementing the three DDGs, three DDs and four/six DEs.

There was still a need to replace the DDs and DEs in the 80s to early 90s, but a sloop type capability would have completely transformed the RAN in the 70s.

I agree it would have thats why i would have liked the RAN to have built the DDL in its final iteration aswell as a GP Escort like a type 21 with us systems

 

[Rule of cool]

I have a vague idea that if the RAN got the 4th DDG there wouldn't be so keen to get more SAM ships by 1973. I'm inclined to think the RAN would be happy to go with the Type 21 in about 1969. The River replacement can then be SAM ships in the 80s, although that is getting a bit late.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

IIRC the RAN would have preferred the Type 42 with US sensors and weapons and considered the OHPs 'second rate escorts".

The question is is such a thing possible? How big is the US Mk54 5" gun compared to the UK Mk 8 4.5" gun, or would the OHP's 3" gun be needed? Could the US Mk26 twin missile launcher fit instead of the Sea Dart Launcher?

Mk-13 has a much smaller footprint than Sea Dart and the Mk-8 is comparable to the Mk-45.

I have an incomplete model of an RAN Type 42 somewhere; I stuffed the paint up and need to redo it.

It had a Mk-45 5", a Mk-13 with appropriate directors for SM-1 and i built a new hanger for two Sea King, similar to ARA Hercules in her current configuration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARA_Hércules_(B-52)By Colección Martín Otero - In the Atlantic South, <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5" title="Creative Commons Attribution 2.5">CC BY 2.5</a>, <a href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1866294">Link</a>

While quite doable, it was a bit wasteful too, as Sea Dart was a superior missile to SM-1MR.

My WIFF that I have yet to attempt is an evolved Type 22 with Tartar (probably Mk-13, maybe Mk-26) inserted in a hull plug between the funnel and hangar. Either retaining Seawolf, or perhaps replacing it with a Mk-29 and Sea Sparrow. This would have been instead of DDL / FFG-07. A further development would have been a Batch 2 built in the 90s with Mk-41s replacing both the Mk-13/26 and the Mk-29.

In this same AU a Type 21 with US systems, i.e. Mk-29 Sea Sparrow and Harpoon, would have been built as a GPF/Sloop, supplementing the high-end combatants. There would have been no patrol boats in this scenario, rather a small force of reserve training vessels and a couple of FAC for training and operational evaluation / trials.

One thing about not building the DDL ships is that the proposed and built ships don't have nearly the same capability as the proposed DDL, the closest is the us armed Type 42 then still the DDL is still a lot better destroyer.
Better armed and has 2 vs 1 helicopter.

@Caryina2642 sort of beat me to it.

Type 42 and DDL were similar size hulls with exactly the same machinery (Olympus-Tyne COGOG) and similar armaments.

Therefore, a Type 42 platform (hull & machinery) fitted with an American payload (sensors & weapons) is reinventing the DDL, but without the second Lynx, the SSMs and the two twin 35mm AA guns.

 

[Volkodav]

Had the Daring, and maybe the Battle class, Tartar conversions gone ahead, there wouldn't have been a need for more area air defence ships in the 70s.

Same if Escort Cruisers or similar had been acquired in the 60s and/or 70s, combined with Tartar conversions.

Having a mix of new ships and conversions would also have been good, as it would have forced a replacement program for them to start in the 80s, which would have led to ships somewhat more capable than the FFG-07. Many of the issues we have today stem from the availability of six FFGs, which, although compromised, could be life extended to delay the acquisition of a replacement DDG. This is how we ended up dropping from three mid-level DDGs and six low-end FFGs to three high-end FFGs (the Hobarts)

Also, the larger crews of these ships, compared to the FFG-07, means the RAN would have had a much larger pool of trained personnel in the 80s. This would have made the procurement of Arleigh Burkes, at least to replace the Perth's (or whatever new DDG/DLG was bought/built in the 60s) a possibility, along with, hopefully, if not more Burkes, capable frigates to replace the others.

 

[Volkodav]

@Caryinya2642 sort of beat me to it.

Type 42 and DDL were similar size hulls with exactly the same machinery (Olympus-Tyne COGOG) and similar armaments.

Therefore, a Type 42 platform (hull & machinery) fitted with an American payload (sensors & weapons) is reinventing the DDL, but without the second Lynx, the SSMs and the two twin 35mm AA guns.

The DDL apparently had a lot of similarities with the Type 21 under the skin, as project members had exposure to that design during Australia's involvement early in the Type 21 development.