Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

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 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.
According to the F-111C Wiki page was that the original order was for 18x Strike and 6x Recce aircraft but was later agreed to accept all has the strike variant.
I would suspect if the RA-5C was brought you would have 24 - 30x A-5C Strike/Buddy Tanker Variants & 6-12x RA-5C Recce Variants
Possibly but even when the Indonesian Conflict ended the long range reconnassiance provided would be quite handy for the ADF
 
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 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.

I just came across the following again on this fantastic forum:

As stated/posted by Kiltonge
RF-111 was initially to have the same recce systems ( optical & radar ) as the RF-4C but palletised and with onboard real-time processing. The main advantage wasn't to be the sensors but in penetration speed / range and elimination of vibration at speed that limited the Phantom's use of its suite.
Source:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/general-dynamics-f-111-projects.803/post-656229This being the case, I wonder why Australia/RAAF would have spent some $3 million on developing a stand alone reconnaissance pallet specifically for the RAAF for only four RF-111C's, as opposed to simply adopting same recce systems (optical & radar ) as the RF-4C?

Once again, I can't but help reflect on the political excitement - aka hubris, of wanting, to being part of a such a expensive and risky program, such as either the TFX or TSR.2 programs. Undoubtedly, it was about hedging our bets politically to either Britain or the U.S., with our political/social obsession of needing and being seen to be attached to 'a big brother'.

Personally, I stand by my assertion that the A-5C/RA-5C Vigilante would have been the best purchase by the Australian government/RAAF. With the Australian government/RAAF being mature enough to look at purchasing a nature derivative of either the F-111 or TSR.2 to replace the RA-5C later.
Such a purchase would have mitigated risk (operationally, politically and economically), had the Vigilante in operational service almost immediately, when the so-called principle threat existed (Indonesia), as opposed to waiting almost 10-years of delay of OIC of the F-111C into RAAF operational service.....
The fact was/is, the Vigilante was a strike/reconnaissance platform which then, far exceeded Indonesian defence capabilities.

Also, if, and it's a big if, Indonesia was such an existential threat [even though I'm adamant that it was in fact China which was the intentional target of the Canberra Replacement Program - Menzies and his big dick swinging anti Red China ideology. Then Australia would have pulled out all the stops to supplement the Vigilante/TFX/TSR.2 purchase with airborne refuelling aircraft, from the get go.


Regards
Pioneer
 
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.
Scherger was opposed to acquiring advanced aircraft and was pushing for something along the lines of the Northrop N156F, he considered the Sabre too advanced and complex for the RAAF. The F-104 was also a bullet dodged.

The Mirage was good, but other aircraft were as good or better; it was nothing special.

The DDGs were world-class but not the best and nowhere near the capability of a DLG, in fact they were not much better than the conversions carried out by other nations on existing ships. Shackleton pointed out in his thesis a DLG would have been better vlue for money and actually would have met more of the RANs requirements.

The six options in the F-111 contract were intended for RF-111 once developed; the options were later used to buy four F-111A as attrition replacements, which were modified to C configuration.

There were many aspirations during the Menzies years, but very little real expenditure until the various national security panics occurred.
 
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?
I don't remember reading about one the US was working on, we had the RF-4s for that. Or RA5s.



I just came across the following again on this fantastic forum:

As stated/posted by Kiltonge

Source:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/general-dynamics-f-111-projects.803/post-656229This being the case, I wonder why Australia/RAAF would have spent some $3 million on developing a stand alone reconnaissance pallet specifically for the RAAF for only four RF-111C's, as opposed to simply adopting same recce systems (optical & radar ) as the RF-4C?
Huh?

That says that the only development stuff is the pallet, not the systems on said pallet!
 
I wonder why Australia/RAAF would have spent some $3 million on developing a stand alone reconnaissance pallet specifically for the RAAF for only four RF-111C's, as opposed to simply adopting same recce systems (optical & radar ) as the RF-4C?

Probably because there was a 15 years between the RF4C IOC and the first RF111C conversion.
 
The F-104 was also a bullet dodged.

The Mirage was good, but other aircraft were as good or better; it was nothing special.

What fighters available to Australia, and affordable in numbers, were better than the Mirage?

The DDGs were world-class but not the best and nowhere near the capability of a DLG, in fact they were not much better than the conversions carried out by other nations on existing ships. Shackleton pointed out in his thesis a DLG would have been better vlue for money and actually would have met more of the RANs requirements.

Obviously a DLG is better than a DDG, but the RAN wasn't in the market for a DLG and the Adams were about the only new Tartar destroyers available in 1960.
 
I don't remember reading about one the US was working on, we had the RF-4s for that. Or RA5s.
Yeah according to wiki the usaf was developing a pallet recce system to go into the bomb bay which they dropped. I belive they sold the design to us, so we could create a recce system for the F-111C
What fighters available to Australia, and affordable in numbers, were better than the Mirage?
Affordable in numbers the F-11B Super Tiger i would argue was a better fighter than the mirage, only thing against it was the USN never ordered any.
Though according to google AI (I know not a great source) The F-4B costed around 2million USD per plane which (If my math is correct) would cost 1.42m AUD
The Mirage III was estimated to cost 193.7million AUD
so 193.7/1.42 = 136 F-4B Phantoms could have been acquired (Again if my Math is Correct)
Obviously a DLG is better than a DDG, but the RAN wasn't in the market for a DLG and the Adams were about the only new Tartar destroyers available in 1960.
Though the RAN was in the market for a DLG cause originally they wanted a modified County Class which is a DLG in all but name
 
What fighters available to Australia, and affordable in numbers, were better than the Mirage?



Obviously a DLG is better than a DDG, but the RAN wasn't in the market for a DLG and the Adams were about the only new Tartar destroyers available in 1960.
Crusader, F-106, Draken, Phantom? I personally love the Lightning, but acknowledge the UK government seemed determined to make it unmarketable.

The County was basically a DLG, and the RAN looked at it seriously. A number of old and bolds who served on Perths have told me that quite a few of them wished Australia had bought the Counties.

Many in the RAN knew they really needed DLGs, while the government would have been perfectly happy with surplus FRAM Gearings etc., and when it became impossible to avoid the need for air defence missiles, they would have been happy with Brooke Class DEGs. Upgrading the Darings and maybe the Battles with Tartar could have been cheaper than buying three Adams Class.

When the RN looked at the RAN requirements, they pointed out that an Escort Cruiser would be the best fit.
 
Affordable in numbers the F-11B Super Tiger i would argue was a better fighter than the mirage, only thing against it was the USN never ordered any.
Though according to google AI (I know not a great source) The F-4B costed around 2million USD per plane which (If my math is correct) would cost 1.42m AUD
The Mirage III was estimated to cost 193.7million AUD
so 193.7/1.42 = 136 F-4B Phantoms could have been acquired (Again if my Math is Correct)
Crusader, F-106, Draken, Phantom? I personally love the Lightning, but acknowledge the UK government seemed determined to make it unmarketable.

People love the Super Tiger, but it was a paper plane. The Mirage is superior to the Crusader, the Drakken looks good on paper but it didn't sell well which makes it suspect in my eyes. The Phantom didn't become available for export until 1964 and then to the very specific customer in the RN, the F106 was never exported or even put into service in big numbers (for the USAF) and the Lightning lacked the support of the British Government. In reality the competition was between the F104 and Mirage and Mirage was a better plane, and if well flown (which it would be in RAAF service) could be put up against any of those suggested aircraft with a good chance of success.

Though the RAN was in the market for a DLG cause originally they wanted a modified County Class which is a DLG in all but name
The County was basically a DLG, and the RAN looked at it seriously. A number of old and bolds who served on Perths have told me that quite a few of them wished Australia had bought the Counties.

Many in the RAN knew they really needed DLGs, while the government would have been perfectly happy with surplus FRAM Gearings etc., and when it became impossible to avoid the need for air defence missiles, they would have been happy with Brooke Class DEGs. Upgrading the Darings and maybe the Battles with Tartar could have been cheaper than buying three Adams Class.

When the RN looked at the RAN requirements, they pointed out that an Escort Cruiser would be the best fit.

The RAN wanted a SAGW ship, in the terminology of the time, and was a traditional buyer of British ships. This is what put the County class on the menu, not that it had command spaces, communications and staff to lead other ships. If the RAN really wanted DLGs then the US Leahey and Belknap classes would be on the menu alongside the Counties. The fact that the RAN looked at the Brooke class and rejected it at least in part because they didn't fit the schedule shows what the RAN was really looking for, regardless of what RAN members who don't have to worry about budgets, manning, building schedules and priorities might want. The Adams class provided a comprehensive SAGW ship within the RAN's budget and manning constraints without the crew and cost overheads of a DLG and the schedule slippage and poor capability of the DE/G.

As for a Tartar conversion of a Battle or Daring, while these may be cheaper than new ships they often don't represent value for money. Such conversions often come with limitations compared to a new build, have a shorter service life and do not represent an expansion of the Navy in a growth period.
 
People love the Super Tiger, but it was a paper plane. The Mirage is superior to the Crusader, the Drakken looks good on paper but it didn't sell well which makes it suspect in my eyes. The Phantom didn't become available for export until 1964 and then to the very specific customer in the RN, the F106 was never exported or even put into service in big numbers (for the USAF) and the Lightning lacked the support of the British Government. In reality the competition was between the F104 and Mirage and Mirage was a better plane, and if well flown (which it would be in RAAF service) could be put up against any of those suggested aircraft with a good chance of success.
i wouldnt say the super tiger was a paper plane as it did have flying prototypes. It also wpuld have been the nato standard fighter of the 60s if lockheed hadnt slipped some money under the the table.
If australia asked i wouldnt be suprised if they would be able to get the phantom earlier.

Though australian requirments kinda suggests it wants a dlg
 
i wouldnt say the super tiger was a paper plane as it did have flying prototypes. It also wpuld have been the nato standard fighter of the 60s if lockheed hadnt slipped some money under the the table.

The Super Tiger was an experiment that vastly exceeded expectations, this does not make it the best fighter in the world. It wasn't going to be exported unless the US orders it into production themselves, like the USAF did with the F104A and F104C for example. All the money under the table won't change this.

If australia asked i wouldnt be suprised if they would be able to get the phantom earlier.

Australia looked at the Phantom in 1963 as a strike aircraft. It's a lot of aircraft for the Australia's Sabre replacement.

Though australian requirments kinda suggests it wants a dlg

Requirements must be balanced against other realities, and Australia is not alone in this regard. All sorts of things would be good to get, but the challenge is to get the best capability within realistic budget, manning and other constraints.
 
The Super Tiger was an experiment that vastly exceeded expectations, this does not make it the best fighter in the world. It wasn't going to be exported unless the US orders it into production themselves, like the USAF did with the F104A and F104C for example. All the money under the table won't change this.
It was the leading fighter contender for west germany and japan untill lockheed offered its bribes. In the 50s and 60s i dont think it as important for the not to order units themselves. For example if there was no korean war the RAAF vampire replacement wpuld have been the hawker P.1081. Plus the super tiger would have offer a great way for countries to get there aerospace industries back up and running post war
 
Ive just been reading the wiki page for HMAS Jervis Bay and apparently there were more extensive plans to allow it to carry 6 helicopters. Does any one have more info on this?
 
It was the leading fighter contender for west germany and japan untill lockheed offered its bribes.

I think the bribes are icing on the cake, all the bribes in the world aren't going to make countries in the market for a Mach 2 fighter buy a WW1 biplane, or even a hotted up transonic fighter. The F104 was in production in 1958 when the Germans selected it, had the strong backing of the US government and the ability to lock the likes of Germany and Japan into a huge multinational consortium rather than have them go it alone.

In the 50s and 60s i dont think it as important for the not to order units themselves. For example if there was no korean war the RAAF vampire replacement wpuld have been the hawker P.1081.

50s, subsonic day fighters, certainly but by the time a single plane is going mach 2 with its own all-weather radar in 1960 or so going it alone as an export customer is much less practical.

Plus the super tiger would have offer a great way for countries to get there aerospace industries back up and running post war

A huge, multinational consortium to build F104s is a great way to get aerospace industries up and running postwar. I don't think many countries were too keen on Japan and Germany going it alone and developing their own mach 2 fighters in the late 50s, memories of WW2 were still very fresh.
 
Ive just been reading the wiki page for HMAS Jervis Bay and apparently there were more extensive plans to allow it to carry 6 helicopters. Does any one have more info on this?

No, but after the RAN she was modified to go from 190 to 1,120 passengers and 125 to 300 cars, although this was over distances of about 300km as opposed to 1,000-1,200km in Australian commercial service.
 
No, but after the RAN she was modified to go from 190 to 1,120 passengers and 125 to 300 cars, although this was over distances of about 300km as opposed to 1,000-1,200km in Australian commercial service.
I wonder if the 6 helicopters was apart of that modification, cause if so it would make it good replacement for HMAS Sydney
 
I wonder if the 6 helicopters was apart of that modification, cause if so it would make it good replacement for HMAS Sydney

The new owners extended the super structure to accommodate all those extra passengers; I'd suggest than if the RAN went nuts the helicopter deck would be instead of that extra superstructure, particularly as loaded helicopters are heavy. The SS Canberra and QE2 had helicopter landing decks installed over the pools as the structure is designed to carry all that water which is heavy. My guess is helicopter facilities or extra accommodation is an either-or proposition.

Here's a picture of the Jervis Bay in Greek service, with the extended superstructure.
 
The new owners extended the super structure to accommodate all those extra passengers; I'd suggest than if the RAN went nuts the helicopter deck would be instead of that extra superstructure, particularly as loaded helicopters are heavy. The SS Canberra and QE2 had helicopter landing decks installed over the pools as the structure is designed to carry all that water which is heavy. My guess is helicopter facilities or extra accommodation is an either-or proposition.

Here's a picture of the Jervis Bay in Greek service, with the extended superstructure.
I wonder how much u can increase the passenger and car numbers with 6 helos on board?
 
People love the Super Tiger, but it was a paper plane. The Mirage is superior to the Crusader, the Drakken looks good on paper but it didn't sell well which makes it suspect in my eyes. The Phantom didn't become available for export until 1964 and then to the very specific customer in the RN, the F106 was never exported or even put into service in big numbers (for the USAF) and the Lightning lacked the support of the British Government. In reality the competition was between the F104 and Mirage and Mirage was a better plane, and if well flown (which it would be in RAAF service) could be put up against any of those suggested aircraft with a good chance of success.




The RAN wanted a SAGW ship, in the terminology of the time, and was a traditional buyer of British ships. This is what put the County class on the menu, not that it had command spaces, communications and staff to lead other ships. If the RAN really wanted DLGs then the US Leahey and Belknap classes would be on the menu alongside the Counties. The fact that the RAN looked at the Brooke class and rejected it at least in part because they didn't fit the schedule shows what the RAN was really looking for, regardless of what RAN members who don't have to worry about budgets, manning, building schedules and priorities might want. The Adams class provided a comprehensive SAGW ship within the RAN's budget and manning constraints without the crew and cost overheads of a DLG and the schedule slippage and poor capability of the DE/G.

As for a Tartar conversion of a Battle or Daring, while these may be cheaper than new ships they often don't represent value for money. Such conversions often come with limitations compared to a new build, have a shorter service life and do not represent an expansion of the Navy in a growth period.
To the average person, if a ship is painted grey, it is a battleship. Sadly, this also applies to the average politician.

In my initial postgrad studies, conducted by retired O-5/6s from Army, RAAF and RN (yes RN not RAN he was a Scot), a common narrative was the RAAF and RAF were much better at staff work and selling capability to politicians than the other two services. They were more of the belief that history proved their value to be self-evident.

There is always a temptation to assume the choice made was the best choice and the unsuccessful options weren't really viable.

The RAN needed more ships, they needed area air defence missile systems, and they needed balanced ships with command spaces. They also needed submarines, fighters, ASW aircraft and helicopters, and strike aircraft, but money was limited.

There is a temptation to focus on platforms and specific systems, often with the benefit of hindsight.

The truth is the Mirage was better than the F-104, but it was not as good as it could have been. It is also true there were better aircraft our there. The F-4, wasn't to my knowledge, restricted from export, as I understand it, it was offered to Australia as a Sabre replacement and then again as a Canberra replacement. Nor was the F-106 restricted. The Draken was looked at in the initial assessments but determined that it wouldn't be available in time, for some reason it was not revisited following the delay of the program and the F-104 buy not going ahead.

Many, perfectly good enough, types would have been better than the last batch of Sabres, including significantly evolved Sabres. FJ4 Fury, Super Sabre, Super Mystere? There were options that could have enabled a continuation of a flying reserve, Folland Gnat, Etendard and N156F.

An Alt History I have played with is the RAAF leased two Sqns of early model Lightnings instead of buying Bloodhound. It was never on the cards, never even discussed, but why not?

The RAN did prefer Tartar to Sea Slug, but Tartar, like Terrier and Talos, was not a very capable or effective system at the time, in fact the performance of these systems was so bad the USN was looking to replace them with Typhon. They were eventually made more reliable and capable after a long and expensive "get well" program, then progressively replaced with the much-improved Standard Missile family, which was fortunately compatible with the existing launchers, although much of the rest of the systems needed to be replaced.
 
There is always a temptation to assume the choice made was the best choice and the unsuccessful options weren't really viable.

I find there's an assumption that the people on the spot made incorrect choices because they were stupid, when in fact they had a lot of parameters they had to work within which threads like these rarely consider.
The truth is the Mirage was better than the F-104, but it was not as good as it could have been.

The option for the Atar 9K-10 was not taken up as the engine had not flown by the time a decision needed to be taken. This is an example of the Mirage not being all it could have been, but also shows the reason why, and to delay provides a worse outcome overall.

Many, perfectly good enough, types would have been better than the last batch of Sabres, including significantly evolved Sabres. FJ4 Fury, Super Sabre, Super Mystere?

Sure, but then you have a new type to manage, with all its overheads and hassles. Is the capability worth the hassle? I think not compared to other options.
 
It could be convincingly argued that Australia would have been better served going for more austere options across the board in the 50s and 60s to maintain, even increase, the number of trained personnel, to maintain or grow industrial capability, and to maintain a constant throughput of incrementally improving equipment.

There was an assumption that nuclear war would be short and devastating; hence, you would fight with what you had.

The thing is, even back then, it was realised that there were a lot of bushfire wars, wars that did not require the latest and greatest gear.

This is why the RAN wanted more hulls and wanted to maintain their trade protection capabilities, why NGS remained important, why counter surface raider capabilities were important.

This is why the RAAF reserve had several fighter squadrons or types still useful for CAS.

This is why the CMF had armour as well as the other corps.

I wonder if it could have been viable to have had a small silver bullet force equipped with the latest tech, but the majority of the ADF could be integrated with regular and reserve units with perfectly good enough gear.
 
I find there's an assumption that the people on the spot made incorrect choices because they were stupid, when in fact they had a lot of parameters they had to work within which threads like these rarely consider.


The option for the Atar 9K-10 was not taken up as the engine had not flown by the time a decision needed to be taken. This is an example of the Mirage not being all it could have been, but also shows the reason why, and to delay provides a worse outcome overall.



Sure, but then you have a new type to manage, with all its overheads and hassles. Is the capability worth the hassle? I think not compared to other options.
You are missing the point, some of them were stupid. Actually, stupid is unfair, there are literally people out there with IQs of 110-115, with degrees and years of experience, who make foolish decisions because they see themselves as superior and smarter than everyone else. The thing is the technical manager, or the highly experienced operator, they are shouting down may well be just as smart or smarter and have more than twenty years of experience, so may the trades supervisor; they may be visual thinkers who can literally see the problem in their minds but can't articulate it to someone who hasn't seen it before, someone who can't visualise it.

I have seen too much over my career not to realise this. I can't talk about it in any detail, but I have literally been in the room when the stupid person won the argument, and we had to deal with the fully anticipated results not that long after. I have also seen people who aren't stupid push for stupid options because it suits their biases or achieves some other aim.

One project comes to mind where, when I heard how they were planning to do it I pointed out that it would not work. Not just was it impossible to do that work within the proposed schedule, it was physically impossible to do the work because people don't fit where they would need to fit to do the work.

They argued black and blue that it could be done, that it had to be done, while I pointed out that there were two options, reduce scope to what could be done within the constraints they had placed on it, or increase scope to permit concurrent activities, but also introduce additional technical risk. The technical risk could be mitigated, but it required preliminary work that they had already decided they weren't going to do because of cost.

Long story short, expensive consultants confirmed what I had said, the preliminary work mitigated risk, but their refusal to see the obvious meant the schedule was blown before work even started.

Other examples, a platform suffered a structural failure that was anticipated in the design phase, but not fixed because of cost and schedule, causing cost blowouts and schedule slip when it failed. Actually, that happens all the time.

There is never just one option, never just one way to do things, but it needs to be examined holistically. Unfortunately, government in general, and defence specifically, relies on hierarchies and swim lanes. There is very little effective use of bottom-up, or holistic thinking, too much frogs eye focusing on the detail, not enough birds eye on the big picture and almost none of the vital switching between the two.

Too often, the confident person speaking with conviction is listened to over the competent person who says "it depends".
 
I wonder if it could have been viable to have had a small silver bullet force equipped with the latest tech, but the majority of the ADF could be integrated with regular and reserve units with perfectly good enough gear.

The Pentropic experiments devastation of the CMF precluded that, although I wonder what the possibilities would be with a strong, well supported CMF during the Vietnam era. If the CMF was able to raise active battalions, even for short periods then conscription may have been avoided.
 
The Pentropic experiments devastation of the CMF precluded that, although I wonder what the possibilities would be with a strong, well supported CMF during the Vietnam era. If the CMF was able to raise active battalions, even for short periods then conscription may have been avoided.
There was a stack of surplus gear post WWII that other nations procured and used into the 80s and even the 90s, gear that could have mechanised most of the CMF.

Australia went light or "jungle" infantry heavy, which requires a lot of manpower, to fight the Japanese, just when other nations were going tank heavy to conserve manpower. Mechanisation, using sets of gear for training with the majority in storage, could have worked.

The late WWI proposal was for one reg and two reserve tank brigades, the regs would have had Centurions and the reserves Comets. Take it a step further and have an integrated Brigade with mostly reserves with the Cents, a CMF brigade with Comets in the CMF and a reserve Brigade with a regular cadre for maintenance etc., reliant on inactive reserves to deploy.

As new generations of equipment are acquired, cascade to older to the next rung down.

Do the same with the RAAF flying reserve.

On the navy side, I wonder if a modified Type 14 Frigate could have been viable as a replacement for the war built corvettes and frigates. Give it a 4" or 4.5" gun in addition to its Bofors, and maybe Seacat to replace the Bofors later.
 
Ive just had a thought what would have the RAN and government done if Melbourbe was a write off after one of its two collisions. Would they try and aquire another colossus/majestic class? Or would centuar/hermes be on the table? Or would they get out of the carrier game alltogether?
 
The truth is the Mirage was better than the F-104, but it was not as good as it could have been. It is also true there were better aircraft our there. The F-4, wasn't to my knowledge, restricted from export, as I understand it, it was offered to Australia as a Sabre replacement and then again as a Canberra replacement. Nor was the F-106 restricted. The Draken was looked at in the initial assessments but determined that it wouldn't be available in time, for some reason it was not revisited following the delay of the program and the F-104 buy not going ahead.

Many, perfectly good enough, types would have been better than the last batch of Sabres, including significantly evolved Sabres. FJ4 Fury, Super Sabre, Super Mystere? There were options that could have enabled a continuation of a flying reserve, Folland Gnat, Etendard and N156F.

An Alt History I have played with is the RAAF leased two Sqns of early model Lightnings instead of buying Bloodhound.
There was nothing better than the Mirage III for the price. The RAAF archives are pretty clear that the Mirage was the most balanced, most cost effective option, with the least flaws.

If you wanted a comprehensive multirole weapons system (rather than a single role day fighter or interceptor), the only other options were the F-4 (much more expensive) and the F-104G (flawed and also more expensive). All the others on this list were either interceptors (F-106, Lightning) or day fighters with no interception capability and limited strike capability.

For the high-altitude interceptor role, the Mirage III was better than most with its rocket pack and Matra R530 radar + IR guided missiles. For the day fighter role it had its excellent 2x30mm gunpack which was better than most fighters of the time (F-8 with unreliable Colt 20mms, F-106 & Lightning often flying without guns, F-4B/C completely gunless etc). For the strike role it had the right avionics and a wide range of guided (AS-30) and unguided ammunition options.

The closest comparable would have been the J35F Draken (AIM-4 Falcons), which came later, was even shorter legged, and was not multirole. Or the F-8E Crusader, which was longer legged but only marginally capable in the strike and high altitude interceptor roles. Neither the early Drakens (before 1965) nor the Crusader were able to intercept bombers head-on.

F11F-1F Super Tiger was a great day fighter, but it was a prototype without the radar & missile systems to perform interceptions, and without the avionics and ordnance options for the strike role.

So basically once you've struck out, you're back to the F-104G, which still couldn't perform head-on intercepts and had worse runway performance, which was a particular area of concern for the RAAF. Or the F-4, with double the engines, double the pilots, much more maintenance intensive, and smoky J79s which were a liability in air-to-air combat.

They Mirage III choice was the right one considering how the Israelis used it as a multirole fighter in the Six Day War (1967). And Israel continued to favor the Mirage III over the F-4 Phantom for fighter missions during the Yom Kippur war (1974)...
 
......the F-104G, which ............. had worse runway performance, which was a particular area of concern for the RAAF.

The Australian region was particularly poor for runways and support facilities such as sophisticated refueling equipment which is why the RAAF Mirages had gravity refueling and couldn't be refitted for in-flight refueling later on. IIUC the Mirages could operate on 6000-8000' runways but the F104 could only operate from 8000'+ runways and while the former are not prevalent the latter are close to non-existent.
 
I've been thinking about stuff that happened in the 90s
what would happen if the Kidd Class replaced the Perth Class in the 90s and the Anzac Class are complete properly not with fitted for but not with crap. Eg: the 2nd 8 Cell Mk 41 VLS and 1 Phalanx CIWS. How would this effect the Navy going forward?
In the 87 White Paper it was recommend that the RAAF acquire AEW&C to go with the JORN Radar. What AEW&C Aircraft would the RAAF get?
Also in the 87 they were looking at acquiring enough blackhawks to be able to do a 3 company battlefield lift?
How would all this effect the ADF?
 
I've been thinking about stuff that happened in the 90s
what would happen if the Kidd Class replaced the Perth Class in the 90s and the Anzac Class are complete properly not with fitted for but not with crap. Eg: the 2nd 8 Cell Mk 41 VLS and 1 Phalanx CIWS. How would this effect the Navy going forward?
That would make the RAN a lot better defended against air threats. Not good enough for a Russian multi-regiment bomber attack, but good enough for pretty much anything short of that.



In the 87 White Paper it was recommend that the RAAF acquire AEW&C to go with the JORN Radar. What AEW&C Aircraft would the RAAF get?
Almost certainly E-3. 1990s Nimrods are looking awfully long in the tooth. Maybe E767s like Japan bought, so Oz gets new airframes.


Also in the 87 they were looking at acquiring enough blackhawks to be able to do a 3 company battlefield lift?
How would all this effect the ADF?
Hopefully it'd result in the Oz Army being half heavy mechanized and half airmobile.
 
I think the 'fitted for but not with' comes at least in part from the extremely vague Defence Self Reliance era where it was believed we'd have 10 years warning time of a rising threat, therefore all we had to do was build ships etc and we could outfit those during this 10-year period. I think a lot of the things we've discussed in this thread would reduce the worst of the 'fitted for but not with' by setting the minimum standard a bit higher in the preceding decades, for example we'd likely buy some more Phalanx CIWS in the 80s so more ships could be fitted with them in the 90s and beyond.

A bit more contribution to the 1991 PGW would also help in this regard, perhaps send the RF111Cs that were on 24-hour standby to move, which would illustrate the problem of falling too far behind the expected international standard and result in a generally higher level of minimum equipment fit in terms of ECM and other 'optional' equipment.
 
hat would make the RAN a lot better defended against air threats. Not good enough for a Russian multi-regiment bomber attack, but good enough for pretty much anything short of that.
So perfect for the RAN in the mid 90s going on to the 21st centaury then
Almost certainly E-3. 1990s Nimrods are looking awfully long in the tooth. Maybe E767s like Japan bought, so Oz gets new airframes.
I would have thought E-3 while perfect would be too expensive, I was thinking more along the lines of E-2s or P-3 AEW.
Hopefully it'd result in the Oz Army being half heavy mechanized and half airmobile.
The Army's orgininal plan under project waler (The replacement for the M113) was for 1st Division to be light, airmobile quick deployable force and 3rd Division the heavy mechanised force. Both division being a mixed of Regs, Integrated Units & Ready Res Units.
I think the 'fitted for but not with' comes at least in part from the extremely vague Defence Self Reliance era where it was believed we'd have 10 years warning time of a rising threat, therefore all we had to do was build ships etc and we could outfit those during this 10-year period. I think a lot of the things we've discussed in this thread would reduce the worst of the 'fitted for but not with' by setting the minimum standard a bit higher in the preceding decades, for example we'd likely buy some more Phalanx CIWS in the 80s so more ships could be fitted with them in the 90s and beyond.

A bit more contribution to the 1991 PGW would also help in this regard, perhaps send the RF111Cs that were on 24-hour standby to move, which would illustrate the problem of falling too far behind the expected international standard and result in a generally higher level of minimum equipment fit in terms of ECM and other 'optional' equipment.
Was there any plans to send Hornets or F-111s to the Gulf War?
 
Was there any plans to send Hornets or F-111s to the Gulf War?

I've never heard about Hornets, but a mate was on the ground crew prepping the RF111s for deployment, they were at 24 hours' notice to move.

A gap in recce capabilities was shown in the 1991 PGW (and again in Bosnia apparently) because recce satellite orbits were known and the enemy could work around them; hide when they were overhead and move etc when none were overhead. There was a need for more flexible recce that could cover the gaps, and/or react to what satellites had found, which is why the US wanted to reactivate the SR71 and presumably why they want the RAAF to deploy RF111Cs.
 
I've never heard about Hornets, but a mate was on the ground crew prepping the RF111s for deployment, they were at 24 hours' notice to move.

A gap in recce capabilities was shown in the 1991 PGW (and again in Bosnia apparently) because recce satellite orbits were known and the enemy could work around them; hide when they were overhead and move etc when none were overhead. There was a need for more flexible recce that could cover the gaps, and/or react to what satellites had found, which is why the US wanted to reactivate the SR71 and presumably why they want the RAAF to deploy RF111Cs.
So only RF-111Cs where going to be sent to the Gulf War? I wonder why they didnt think about sending F-111Cs for Air Strikes and/Hornets to?
I wonder if the government ever thought about sending a Battalion?
 
So only RF-111Cs where going to be sent to the Gulf War? I wonder why they didnt think about sending F-111Cs for Air Strikes and/Hornets to?
I wonder if the government ever thought about sending a Battalion?

Bob Hawke was adamant, 'no boots in the sand'. In any case the ADF wasn't really equipped to send much to such a dangerous and high-level conflict. This was a war of heavies, M1 Abrams and Challenger tanks with their IFVs, SP artillery, MLRS and all the cool gear. Even in the best realistic scenario would the ADF have much to offer, although the SASR might have been useful.
 
Bob Hawke was adamant, 'no boots in the sand'. In any case the ADF wasn't really equipped to send much to such a dangerous and high-level conflict. This was a war of heavies, M1 Abrams and Challenger tanks with their IFVs, SP artillery, MLRS and all the cool gear. Even in the best realistic scenario would the ADF have much to offer, although the SASR might have been useful.
So bassically the naval contingent, SASR RF-111Cs, with possible deployment of Hornets and F-111Cs is the most that could have been deployed
 
Because I'm obsessed with the premature disposal of the British wheeled AFVs I've come up with a different pathway for their retention.

Historically in 1960 they were allocated to Regular sqns in 2 CMF units, using personnel from the disbanded C sqns 1st AR, and in 1965 these 2 sqns were pulled for their CMF units to form 1 Cavalry Regiment. In 1965 1 APC sqn was also formed, equipped with the new M113A1s, and 1 Cav had their British wheeled AFVs replaced in 1965-66.

However, in 1954 a troop of Ferret was added to 1st Armoured Regiment as a Recce Troop in addition to the 2 tank sqns. As Government approval is required to stand up a new unit, but not subunits within the existing units, in 1960 an alternative path could be that the Recce Troop is expanded into a full Recce sqn with Saladins and Saracens added conforming to the structure set out in the Pentropic organisation. A second Recce sqn could also be raised; there were enough Saladin and Saracen to equip 2 sqns on the Pentropic organisational lines.

The 1st AR could be Regt HQ, HQ sqn (tanks) A & B sqns (tanks) and C & D Recce sqns (Ferret, Saladin, Saracen) from 1960 to 1965.

Having the tanks and wheeled AFVs operate together for 5 years ideally would give the head-shed in the RAAC the idea than these wheeled AFVs aren't useless and need to be replaced before their time.
 
Back
Top Bottom