Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[H_K]

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.

That’s fascinating. Skyhawks on a Centaur! Do you have any more info or remember the source?

 

[Pioneer]

A Centaur class carrier would make an excellent upgrade over Melbourne, though it would likely require its own expensive upgrade to quasi-Hermes standard. Perhaps F-8 Crusaders would be bought instead of A-4 Skyhawks or Etendards, though the F-8's attack capability was more limited.

Yes, I'd agree with a Centaur class carrier replacing HMAS Melbourne - especially before Melbourne went through it's expensive makeover...
I have to disagree with the flirtation with the Etendard. At the end of the day, both it's fighter and attack capabilities were very limited. Failing the inability to operate the F-8 Crusader from the Centaur, I'd go A-4 Skyhawk's anyday.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

I'm getting confused, here's what the RAN had in service in 1958, the year of the Moreshead Review that recommended the merger of the 4 Defence departments into 1 that didn't proceed, the year that a separate Chairman-COSC was established and the middle of the transition from large conscription into the CMF to the end of conscription.

2 Aircraft carriers, (Sydney in reserve 1958-62, reactivated as FTT)
2 Battle class destroyers, Anzac converted to training ship 1961, Tobruk damaged and not repaired 1960
3 Daring class destroyers (incl 1 fitting out)
3 Q class frigates, decommissioned 1963-64
2 River class DEs building, commissioned 1961

From 1958 to 1964 the RAN then ordered/acquired;

2 more River class DE, commissioned 1963-64
3 Perth class DDG, commissioned 1965 & 67
2 River class DE, commissioned 1970-71

So the RAN went from 8 escorts in 1958 to 10 in 1967 and 12 in 1971.

 

[Pioneer]

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.

If you don't mind me saying Volkodav, I think it would be prudent for the Australian government/RAN to strategically look at the life cycle of the Centaur class, rather than more capability and dare I say more expensive Victorious (launched 1939). The India/Indian Navy clearly demonstrating the diversity and lifespan of Hermes (R12) [Viraat (R22)].

Speaking of strategic discussion, naturally Victorious complement of

• As built: 817 (ship) + 394 (air group)
• post refit: 2,200 (including air group)

needs to be taken into consideration.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

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?

I would think if the Australian government/RAN was to select the Type 42 as the basis for a destroyer, it would be sensible to retain the Mk 8 114mm DP gun arrangement, as the 114mm round was still the principle calibre of the RAN (keeping in mind that the RAN was still happy to facilitate two calibre - 76mm and 127mm in its ORBAT, when selecting the Oliver Hazard Peery class and its 76mm OTO Melara Compact gun). The Mk 8 DP gun was no slouch.
I would personally opt for a single Mk 13 Tartar/Standard system in place of the GSW Mk 30 Sea Dart launcher. I think it's would be more than suffice with it's 36 x Tartar/Standard missiles.
The cost, complexity, volume and weight saved with the compactness of the Mk 13 system not being lost in the scheme of things.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

What about the US twin rail Mk26 launcher, as used on the Virginia class CGNs, Kidd class DDGs and early Tico class CGs. How does that compare with the Mk13 US and Mk30 British launcher/magazine setup, is it too big for a Type 42?

 

[CV12Hornet]

What about the US twin rail Mk26 launcher, as used on the Virginia class CGNs, Kidd class DDGs and early Tico class CGs. How does that compare with the Mk13 US and Mk30 British launcher/magazine setup, is it too big for a Type 42?

Eyeballing things I think you could replace the Sea Dart magazine with a Mod 0/3 Mark 26, i.e. 24 missiles. Which is fewer missiles than the Mark 13 but with a much faster-responding launcher.

 

[Rule of cool]

Following on from my earlier post about RAN escorts.

If the Tobruk hadn't been hit I suspect she would have stayed in service until somewhere in 1962-65. If I'm generous lets say 1964, long enough to provide her crew to a replacement ship.

If that's the case the RAN stays at 8 escorts in 1960 instead of dropping to 7 with the 'loss' of Tobruk.
In 1961 the RAN converts Anzac to training and commissions the first 2 Rivers, making 9 escorts,
In 1963 the RAN decommissions 2 Q class, commissions 1 River class, making 8 escorts.
In 1964 the RAN decommissions 1 Q class and Tobruk, commissions 1 River class, making 7 escorts.
In 1965 the RAN commissions the first 2 DDGs, making 9 escorts.

This where things get strange. In November 1964 the Cabinet rejected the request for at 4th DDG, and ordered 2 River DEs to replace the lost Voyager. The Voyager was immediately replaced by HMS Duchess on a 4 year no cost loan, that was extended another 4 years in 1967 and purchased outright in 1972, so Voyager's loss doesn't reduce the number of escorts. In any case a timeline where Tobruk stays in service and the Defence Departments get a re-org in 1958 and Melbourne gets her mid life rebuild in the early 60s Voyager isn't lost and the 4th DDG is acquired from 1965.

In 1967 the RAN commissions the 3rd DDGs, making 10 escorts.
In 1969 the RAN commissions the 4th DDGs, making 11 escorts.

However this means Australian shipyards aren't building 2 River class in the late 60s.

 

[Rule of cool]

If you don't mind me saying Volkodav, I think it would be prudent for the Australian government/RAN to strategically look at the life cycle of the Centaur class, rather than more capability and dare I say more expensive Victorious (launched 1939). The India/Indian Navy clearly demonstrating the diversity and lifespan of Hermes (R12) [Viraat (R22)].

Speaking of strategic discussion, naturally Victorious complement of

• As built: 817 (ship) + 394 (air group)
• post refit: 2,200 (including air group)

needs to be taken into consideration.

Regards
Pioneer

What about the 'Devil you know'? The RAN is intimately familiar with the Melbourne, is there a risk that in getting an ex-RN carrier the RAN gets a lot of unforeseen problems?

 

[Pioneer]

What about the 'Devil you know'? The RAN is intimately familiar with the Melbourne, is there a risk that in getting an ex-RN carrier the RAN gets a lot of unforeseen problems?

Granted mate.
I think the RAN knew better than anyone the obvious limitations of the Melbourne by this stage.
Regarding the risk, doesn't this become the norm once the Australian government/RAN gives up British designed ships for American design ships, starting with the Charles F. Adams DDG's.... Didn't the Australian government/RAN take such a risk in both acquiring and modifying Melbourne to then new and modern standards, even before she was completed, let alone operationally proven.
I would think, and hope with the same 'RAN is intimately familiar'/experiance in carrier operations, that the RAN wouldn't be going into the acquisition of Centaur class or any other ship purchase so ignorantly or arrogantly (but then I think they did such a thing a couple of decades later with the 'good deal' in acquiring the two rustbucket Newport class LST, did they not....).
I'm confident that the RN/RAN professional relationship and operational liaising would have the British Admiralty blatantly informing their peers in the RAN - 'don't purchase this one, for it's a bucket of shit', for they still strategically needed/wanted the RAN as an axillary to Britain's notion it was still a global power and that Britaina still rulled the seas - if one was to pock themselves in the eye and punched yourself in the balls.....
I would also hope that the RAN still had the maturity to appreciate that simply acquiring a Centaur class carrier for 'bling' factor vs actual capability, performanceand maintainability, without a deep engineering appreciation and physical inspection could/should start the process of accountability of both Minister's of Defence/Department of Defence and Admiral's alike, at the cost of their careers!
I would hope that the RAN would also appreciate that if it screwed up such an important acquisition, such as it's principle capital ship, that it would through its own action, it would be driving its own nails into the death of aircraft carriers within the RAN ORBAT.



Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

Following on from my earlier post about RAN escorts.

If the Tobruk hadn't been hit I suspect she would have stayed in service until somewhere in 1962-65. If I'm generous lets say 1964, long enough to provide her crew to a replacement ship.

If that's the case the RAN stays at 8 escorts in 1960 instead of dropping to 7 with the 'loss' of Tobruk.
In 1961 the RAN converts Anzac to training and commissions the first 2 Rivers, making 9 escorts,
In 1963 the RAN decommissions 2 Q class, commissions 1 River class, making 8 escorts.
In 1964 the RAN decommissions 1 Q class and Tobruk, commissions 1 River class, making 7 escorts.
In 1965 the RAN commissions the first 2 DDGs, making 9 escorts.

This where things get strange. In November 1964 the Cabinet rejected the request for at 4th DDG, and ordered 2 River DEs to replace the lost Voyager. The Voyager was immediately replaced by HMS Duchess on a 4 year no cost loan, that was extended another 4 years in 1967 and purchased outright in 1972, so Voyager's loss doesn't reduce the number of escorts. In any case a timeline where Tobruk stays in service and the Defence Departments get a re-org in 1958 and Melbourne gets her mid life rebuild in the early 60s Voyager isn't lost and the 4th DDG is acquired from 1965.

In 1967 the RAN commissions the 3rd DDGs, making 10 escorts.
In 1969 the RAN commissions the 4th DDGs, making 11 escorts.

However this means Australian shipyards aren't building 2 River class in the late 60s.

I mean if tobruk is repaired, waterhen is built, that also means all the 2x rivers dont get cancelled and all the tribal and q's get there conversion meaning by the early 60s the RAN would have 20 escorts in a mix of active and reserve state.
Destroyers
4x Darings
3x Tribals as ASW Destroyers
2x Battles
Frigates
6x Rivers/Type 12Ms
5x Qs/Type 15

 

[Rule of cool]

Granted mate.
I think the RAN knew better than anyone the obvious limitations of the Melbourne by this stage.
Regarding the risk, doesn't this become the norm once the Australian government/RAN gives up British designed ships for American design ships, starting with the Charles F. Adams DDG's.... Didn't the Australian government/RAN take such a risk in both acquiring and modifying Melbourne to then new and modern standards, even before she was completed, let alone operationally proven.
I would think, and hope with the same 'RAN is intimately familiar'/experiance in carrier operations, that the RAN wouldn't be going into the acquisition of Centaur class or any other ship purchase so ignorantly or arrogantly (but then I think they did such a thing a couple of decades later with the 'good deal' in acquiring the two rustbucket Newport class LST, did they not....).
I'm confident that the RN/RAN professional relationship and operational liaising would have the British Admiralty blatantly informing their peers in the RAN - 'don't purchase this one, for it's a bucket of shit', for they still strategically needed/wanted the RAN as an axillary to Britain's notion it was still a global power and that Britaina still rulled the seas - if one was to pock themselves in the eye and punched yourself in the balls.....
I would also hope that the RAN still had the maturity to appreciate that simply acquiring a Centaur class carrier for 'bling' factor vs actual capability, performanceand maintainability, without a deep engineering appreciation and physical inspection could/should start the process of accountability of both Minister's of Defence/Department of Defence and Admiral's alike, at the cost of their careers!
I would hope that the RAN would also appreciate that if it screwed up such an important acquisition, such as it's principle capital ship, that it would through its own action, it would be driving its own nails into the death of aircraft carriers within the RAN ORBAT.



Regards
Pioneer

I suppose the RAN would be familiar enough with the RN ships that it's unlikely to get stung like it did with the USN LSDs. There was a team in the US looking at the best S2Gs at Davis Monthan when the fire broke out, so the S2Gs weren't duds.

A Centaur would be a good get in the early-mid 60s, 4 knots faster, 2 longer catapults and 50% more room for the CAG adds up to a lot. However in 1968 the Hermes was rejected due to manning constraints, so the RAN might struggle to keep it going and other capability sacrifices might need to be made to maintain her.

 

[Rule of cool]

I mean if tobruk is repaired, waterhen is built, that also means all the 2x rivers dont get cancelled and all the tribal and q's get there conversion meaning by the early 60s the RAN would have 20 escorts in a mix of active and reserve state.
Destroyers
4x Darings
3x Tribals as ASW Destroyers
2x Battles
Frigates
6x Rivers/Type 12Ms
5x Qs/Type 15

By the late 50s it was only the active ships that mattered, just like in the Army and RAAF.

Waterhen was cancelled all the way back in 1954, which shows how difficult the RAN had it even back then.

What Rivers got cancelled?

 

[Caryina2642]

By the late 50s it was only the active ships that mattered, just like in the Army and RAAF.

Waterhen was cancelled all the way back in 1954, which shows how difficult the RAN had it even back then.

What Rivers got cancelled?

The last 2 got cancelled in the 50s and then got built after voyager sunk as modified type 12I instead of type 12M

 

[Rule of cool]

The last 2 got cancelled in the 50s and then got built after voyager sunk as modified type 12I instead of type 12M

Why did they get cancelled? My guess is combination of cost and the inability to man/sustain them.

 

[Caryina2642]

Why did they get cancelled? My guess is combination of cost and the inability to man/sustain them.

I think it was the same reason why waterhen got coast and the rest of the Qs and Tribal conversion got cancelled. I beleive the main reason was costs cuts due to the korea war

 

[Rule of cool]

I think it was the same reason why waterhen got coast and the rest of the Qs and Tribal conversion got cancelled. I beleive the main reason was costs cuts due to the korea war

This is why Australian alternative history is so challenging, there's nowhere to hide changes, every change has to be justified for budget, manning, sustainability and its impact on other programmes.

 

[Caryina2642]

This is why Australian alternative history is so challenging, there's nowhere to hide changes, every change has to be justified for budget, manning, sustainability and its impact on other programmes.

I dont think its hard change to get tbe RAN the 20 escorts it planned for u just need the menzie goverment to realise if it wants to do participate in us lead interventions like korea, continue its role in the FESR and home/other duties it needs to keep spending. Maybe u need a better labour opostion or korea goes for a year longer

 

[CV12Hornet]

A Centaur would be a good get in the early-mid 60s, 4 knots faster, 2 longer catapults and 50% more room for the CAG adds up to a lot. However in 1968 the Hermes was rejected due to manning constraints, so the RAN might struggle to keep it going and other capability sacrifices might need to be made to maintain her.

Hermes had significantly higher manning requirements than the other Centaurs, though its also inconsistent in the sources I have. I've seen 1400 men, 1600 men, and 1800 men for the first three Centaurs, which is all lower than Hermes' 2100 in strike configuration.

 

[Rule of cool]

Hermes had significantly higher manning requirements than the other Centaurs, though its also inconsistent in the sources I have. I've seen 1400 men, 1600 men, and 1800 men for the first three Centaurs, which is all lower than Hermes' 2100 in strike configuration.

All of those are probably correct at some point. 2100 would be when Hermes was crammed with Sea Vixens and Buccaneers, I think Centaur had 1790 crew in her last couple of years as an attack carrier and 1600 would be as Commando carriers with a helicopter squadron. Dunno about 1400, Melbourne had 1350, of which 350 are the air group.

 

[Rule of cool]

I dont think its hard change to get tbe RAN the 20 escorts it planned for u just need the menzie goverment to realise if it wants to do participate in us lead interventions like korea, continue its role in the FESR and home/other duties it needs to keep spending. Maybe u need a better labour opostion or korea goes for a year longer

This is what makes it so difficult, Menzies was doing a lot in the broadest sense to make the nation more defensible, this was after all the era of populate or perish. The reason the main Army focus was on the CMF in the 50s was because Australia couldn't afford a large standing Army, and the same economic calculation applies to the Navy, Australia simply cannot afford a large navy in the 50s.

In any case to grow the Navy from 8 to 11-12 escorts in a decade, a 50% increase, is impressive enough. Struggling to recruit sailors from a booming civilian economy is a good place to be in, Australia was fundamentally more secure in 1970 due to rapid economic development.

 

[H_K]

All of those are probably correct at some point. 2100 would be when Hermes was crammed with Sea Vixens and Buccaneers, I think Centaur had 1790 crew in her last couple of years as an attack carrier and 1600 would be as Commando carriers with a helicopter squadron. Dunno about 1400, Melbourne had 1350, of which 350 are the air group.

For a close comparable, Clemenceau had a ship's crew of ~1,300 and an air wing of ~650. Total about 2,000 crew including task force command elements.

But Clemenceau also had 6 boilers vs 4 on Centaur, a more extensive radar suite, a heavy gun armament of 8x 100mm, and a larger air wing, so one might think that a Centaur crew could be optimized to be slightly less than a Clemenceau... maybe 1,700-1,800?

 

[Rule of cool]

For a close comparable, Clemenceau had a ship's crew of ~1,300 and an air wing of ~650. Total about 2,000 crew including task force command elements.

But Clemenceau also had 6 boilers vs 4 on Centaur, a more extensive radar suite, a heavy gun armament of 8x 100mm, and a larger air wing, so one might think that a Centaur crew could be optimized to be slightly less than a Clemenceau... maybe 1,700-1,800?

The Air wing is another cost and manpower expansion. When the Essex class idea was dropped the RAN wanted 18 A4s and 24 S2s at £43m for Melbourne but ended up with 10 (8+2) A4s and 16 (14+2) S2s in 1967 at £25m with another 10 (8+2) A4s in 1971 which came at the expense of 2 of 4 planned submarines.

If the RAN got the Centaur in 1965 they'd likely have to get the £43m aircraft package, instead of the £25m package. If they got the Hermes after the 1968 offer the 8+2 A4s would likely have to double and perhaps include a few S2s as well, which might result in all 4 subs being cancelled.

 

[Caryina2642]

This is what makes it so difficult, Menzies was doing a lot in the broadest sense to make the nation more defensible, this was after all the era of populate or perish. The reason the main Army focus was on the CMF in the 50s was because Australia couldn't afford a large standing Army, and the same economic calculation applies to the Navy, Australia simply cannot afford a large navy in the 50s.

In any case to grow the Navy from 8 to 11-12 escorts in a decade, a 50% increase, is impressive enough. Struggling to recruit sailors from a booming civilian economy is a good place to be in, Australia was fundamentally more secure in 1970 due to rapid economic development.

From 1950 - 1955 the RAN had between 12 - 16 escorts depending on how you count them in service. so realisticlly all they did was bring the numbers back up after allowing numbers to decrease

 

[Rule of cool]

From 1950 - 1955 the RAN had between 12 - 16 escorts depending on how you count them in service. so realisticlly all they did was bring the numbers back up after allowing numbers to decrease

IIUC the surface fleet, made up of mostly late WW2 built ships was run down as the carrier force was built up. WW2 ships are easy to come by in the 50s, replacing them with peacetime built ships is far more difficult.

 

[Caryina2642]

IIUC the surface fleet, made up of mostly late WW2 built ships was run down as the carrier force was built up. WW2 ships are easy to come by in the 50s, replacing them with peacetime built ships is far more difficult.

That is true thats why keeping the plan for the 20 destroyers and frigates that where already being in service/being built is so important post korea. Plus it allows for continuous shipbuilding for escorts in australia and easier increase in escort numbers
3 tribals replaced 4 DDGs in the mid 60s
5 Type 15/Qs replaced by 2nd batch of 6 river class (like the 2 rivers that replaced Voayger), in the mid 60s to early 70s
so by the early 70s there would be 22 escorts in service

 

[Rule of cool]

That is true thats why keeping the plan for the 20 destroyers and frigates that where already being in service/being built is so important post korea. Plus it allows for continuous shipbuilding for escorts in australia and easier increase in escort numbers
3 tribals replaced 4 DDGs in the mid 60s
5 Type 15/Qs replaced by 2nd batch of 6 river class (like the 2 rivers that replaced Voayger), in the mid 60s to early 70s
so by the early 70s there would be 22 escorts in service

Given how things turned out I'd suggest the plan was unrealistic. The whole Essex attack carrier saga shows the Navy was not immune from unrealistic thinking.

 

[Rule of cool]

Something I've wondered, but don't know if it would make any difference.

RAAF F111Cs were first delivered from September 1968, 15 months after the initial production F111As were delivered to the USAF. The 1968 delivery wasn't originally part of the 'plan' back in 1963-64 when the F111 was selected over the recommendation for the RA5C, the F111/TSR2 were thought to enter service in 1969. IIUC the F111C delivery was moved up to 1968 as part of the selection process, to close the strategic risk gap of keeping the 1st Generation Canberra in service for so long.

Would keeping the original 1969 delivery schedule have made any difference? Did the August 1969 onward F111E have the wing carry-though box problems of the F111C?

 

[Caryina2642]

Given how things turned out I'd suggest the plan was unrealistic. The whole Essex attack carrier saga shows the Navy was not immune from unrealistic thinking.

it only become unrealistic because of run down the RAN got after Korea so it becomes harder to expanded the escorts numbers. If the escort numbers aint reduced after Korea didn't become as unrealistic.
I dont think the essex was an unrealistic proposal in terms of the RAN being able to man and pay for it, just the threat level at the time didnt justify it enough.

 

[Volkodav]

That’s fascinating. Skyhawks on a Centaur! Do you have any more info or remember the source?

I can't remember, maybe Friedman or Hobbs.

 

[GK. Dundas]

Yes, I'd agree with a Centaur class carrier replacing HMAS Melbourne - especially before Melbourne went through it's expensive makeover...
I have to disagree with the flirtation with the Etendard. At the end of the day, both it's fighter and attack capabilities were very limited. Failing the inability to operate the F-8 Crusader from the Centaur, I'd go A-4 Skyhawk's anyday.

Regards
Pioneer

I suspect that running F8 s would be a trifle iffy the French were able operate them off their carriers but just barely .
They had a hellish wastage rate.
I suspect that that the Crusader would be far too hot for a Centaur to handle on a daily basis.
The Skyhawk would be perfect for a Centaur

 

[Volkodav]

The Air wing is another cost and manpower expansion. When the Essex class idea was dropped the RAN wanted 18 A4s and 24 S2s at £43m for Melbourne but ended up with 10 (8+2) A4s and 16 (14+2) S2s in 1967 at £25m with another 10 (8+2) A4s in 1971 which came at the expense of 2 of 4 planned submarines.

If the RAN got the Centaur in 1965 they'd likely have to get the £43m aircraft package, instead of the £25m package. If they got the Hermes after the 1968 offer the 8+2 A4s would likely have to double and perhaps include a few S2s as well, which might result in all 4 subs being cancelled.

A larger, more capable carrier can operate a larger number of the same aircraft, and or larger aircraft, but doesn't have to. A smaller carrier is more limited, not just in the number of what it operates, but also in the types it can operate.

A Centaur can operate AEW types, reconnaissance types (tactical and EWIS) and can operate either a useful number of large fighter attack aircraft or a useful mix of fighter and attack aircraft. A majestic, no matter how extensively upgraded, can't

 

[H_K]

I suspect that running F8 s would be a trifle iffy the French were able operate them off their carriers but just barely .
They had a hellish wastage rate.
I suspect that that the Crusader would be far too hot for a Centaur to handle on a daily basis.

For what it’s worth only 3 of the French Navy’s 24 Crusader crashes occurred during carrier landings. That’s 3 crashes for 26,000 carrier landings, not a bad mishap rate for the time period. Especially considering 15% of their carrier landings were at night.

The “hellish” loss rate (24 out of 42 Crusaders) appears to have been due to a number of reasons, with engine failures perhaps bring the #1 driver.

So anyway… I don’t think the Crusader was too “hot” for a Centaur.

P.S. Hitting the round-down at night did definitely occur at least twice, as it did on HMAS Melbourne! Here’s Crusader #36… pilot ejected once he realized he was missing half his aircraft and walked away uninjured.

 

[Rule of cool]

A larger, more capable carrier can operate a larger number of the same aircraft, and or larger aircraft, but doesn't have to. A smaller carrier is more limited, not just in the number of what it operates, but also in the types it can operate.

A Centaur can operate AEW types, reconnaissance types (tactical and EWIS) and can operate either a useful number of large fighter attack aircraft or a useful mix of fighter and attack aircraft. A majestic, no matter how extensively upgraded, can't

Of course, I can't argue that the Centaur or Hermes or both one after the other wouldn't provide more capability for the RAN. The issue is that getting the governments to support extra capabilities is like getting blood from a stone. This thread has shown that on most if not all occasions governments will do the minimum, or even less than the minimum and to delay whenever possible. So while Centaur or Hermes could carry more aircraft its likely that these aircraft wouldn't be acquired .

 

[Volkodav]

It strikes me that the F-111 procurement doesn't actually fit with the normal Australian acquisition model. It was the best in class, the most advanced, most expensive aircraft of its type available.

Vigilante, Mirage IV, or even Buccaneer, maybe Intruder would have been more like what we would go for, or Phantom.

It just doesn't fit.

It was the equivalent of the RAN getting not DLGs but DLGNs instead of DDGs, SSNs instead of Oberons, or going into a joint program with France to build Verdun class carriers. It would be like the Army getting a Tank Brigade with Conquerors and Centurions, SPG and mechanising the whole nine battalion strong RAR,

 

[Pioneer]

It strikes me that the F-111 procurement doesn't actually fit with the normal Australian acquisition model. It was the best in class, the most advanced, most expensive aircraft of its type available.

Vigilante, Mirage IV, or even Buccaneer, maybe Intruder would have been more like what we would go for, or Phantom.

It just doesn't fit.

It was the equivalent of the RAN getting not DLGs but DLGNs instead of DDGs, SSNs instead of Oberons, or going into a joint program with France to build Verdun class carriers. It would be like the Army getting a Tank Brigade with Conquerors and Centurions, SPG and mechanising the whole nine battalion strong RAR,

I guess, one has to appreciate the fundamental political aspect of the Menzies 'game' with the Canberra bomber replacement - period, my dear Volkodav. It was first and foremost wedge politics in its intent. To wedge Labor into committing/matching to a massively expensive and technically advanced strike-bomber. Or as Menzies was hoping, not matching Menzies and being soft/week on defence.
During a period when Menzies was on a high, banging the drum about 'Reds under the bed' and 'holds of Communist Asians eager to descend upon White Australia and eat our women and rape our dogs...'. Such a strategy had clearly worked I the U.S., with their Red Scare 2.0. Menzies, was simply and unashamedly emulating it.
Add to this, the Australian political and military's wet dream to have or have access to nuclear weapons, and the state-off-the-art, supersonic strike-bomber to deliver it....


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Volkodav]

I guess, one has to appreciate the fundamental political aspect of the Menzies 'game' with the Canberra bomber replacement - period, my dear Volkodav. It was first and foremost wedge politics in its intent. To wedge Labor into committing/matching to a massively expensive and technically advanced strike-bomber. Or as Menzies was hoping, not matching Menzies and being soft/week on defence.
During a period when Menzies was on a high, banging the drum about 'Reds under the bed' and 'holds of Communist Asians eager to descend upon White Australia and eat our women and rape our dogs...'. Such a strategy had clearly worked I the U.S., with their Red Scare 2.0. Menzies, was simply and unashamedly emulating it.
Add to this, the Australian political and military's wet dream to have or have access to nuclear weapons, and the state-off-the-art, supersonic strike-bomber to deliver it....


Regards
Pioneer

Yes, the "Bomber Gap" Labour had Menzies over a barrel for the first time since the DLP split and they were pushing their airpower agenda.

It makes me recall something mentioned in the book, "One Minute of Time. The Melbourne -Voyager Collision" (http://berkelouw.com.au/rare-book/o...melbourne-voyager-collision/228901/buy-online). The author made a point about Menzies, a somewhat unflattering one, that he was used to being in charge and did not like or respect the defence leadership, nor did he tolerate competition or even displays of talent or competence in his own cabinet. Basically, he didn't care at all for defence, other than how it made him look powerful.

Labor's attacks were working, they were showing him as weak on defence, while Australians still remembered WWII and his failings, leaving Curtin to step up.

 

[Rule of cool]

If the F111 was unusual in being best in its class procurement it would only be by degrees not order of magnitude. The Government ordered 30 F104s in 1957, but later cancelled them, and in 1957 the F104 was the only Mach 2 fighter available for export in the world. In 1960 when the Mirage was selected it was a world class fighter and Australia an early adopter, the DDGs were world class and the RAN was an early adopter and even the Army got the M113 early in it's long production life.

Australia's problem isn't really keeping up with technology when buying things, it's not buying enough of them, such as a mere 24 F111s, or 10 A4s and 16 S2s when the RAN recommended 18 and 24, or 6 subs instead of 8.

FWIW in all the archive documents I've seen for the first time while contributing for this thread apparently it was considered unusual that the Government approved 24 F111 bombers and no Recce capability given they kept banging on about Recce capability. I suspect given the Government saying they wanted Recce capability that's why the RA5C Vigilante was recommended by the Hancock mission.

 

[Caryina2642]

If the F111 was unusual in being best in its class procurement it would only be by degrees not order of magnitude. The Government ordered 30 F104s in 1957, but later cancelled them, and in 1957 the F104 was the only Mach 2 fighter available for export in the world. In 1960 when the Mirage was selected it was a world class fighter and Australia an early adopter, the DDGs were world class and the RAN was an early adopter and even the Army got the M113 early in it's long production life.

Australia's problem isn't really keeping up with technology when buying things, it's not buying enough of them, such as a mere 24 F111s, or 10 A4s and 16 S2s when the RAN recommended 18 and 24, or 6 subs instead of 8.

FWIW in all the archive documents I've seen for the first time while contributing for this thread apparently it was considered unusual that the Government approved 24 F111 bombers and no Recce capability given they kept banging on about Recce capability. I suspect given the Government saying they wanted Recce capability that's why the RA5C Vigilante was recommended by the Hancock mission.

Wasnt there going to be a Recce version/Recce pod for the F-111 but the US never developed it? I thought the RA5C was recommended cause the earlier in service date of 1966?

 

[Rule of cool]

Wasnt there going to be a Recce version/Recce pod for the F-111 but the US never developed it?

I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised, it's not as if the US lacked all the Recce gear needed to rig one up in short order.

I thought the RA5C was recommended cause the earlier in service date of 1966?

I certainly was, however the vibe I got (don't quote me, I'm trying to remember from all the old docs I've read) was that the Government was very big on Recce and the RA5C was a fully developed Recce aircraft first and foremost. I've always assumed the RAAF Vigilante would have been a new version of the RA5C optimised for attack, but perhaps a large portion would have been standard RA5C Recce aircraft due to the Government's interest in intelligence gathering.

Perhaps this interest in Recce and Intelligence changed during the prolonged F111 acquisition process, especially when the Indonesian Confrontation ended.