Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

Rule of cool said:
Yes, with the caveat that only the 10 F111Cs with Pave Tack are deployable.
Click to expand...
Thats still a handy number for coalition forces seeing as though the F111 was the best CAS and ground attack aircraft of the war. Could have we borrowed some more from the us?
 
Rule of cool said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not a bad idea at all. I wonder in this scenario when C & D sqns are used to raise 1st Cav Reg would the Tanks still want a Recce Sqn in 1st armoured?
 
Caryina2642 said:
Thats still a handy number for coalition forces seeing as though the F111 was the best CAS and ground attack aircraft of the war. Could have we borrowed some more from the us?
Click to expand...

The USAF deployed 66 F111Fs with Pave Tack, adding 10 Pave Tack F111C is a pretty hefty boost to those numbers.
 
Caryina2642 said:
Not a bad idea at all. I wonder in this scenario when C & D sqns are used to raise 1st Cav Reg would the Tanks still want a Recce Sqn in 1st armoured?
Click to expand...

I was thinking 1st AR would be a good place to put an APC troop or sqn in 1965 to help 1 APC sqn grow the M1113 capability.
 
One thing i would have liked to seen with the centurions is there petrol engined replaced with a diesel engine to increase range
 
Caryina2642 said:
Thats not a bad idea at all
Click to expand...

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day! :p

Caryina2642 said:
One thing i would have liked to seen with the centurions is there petrol engined replaced with a diesel engine to increase range
Click to expand...

I'd think that would be instead of replacement by Leopard (or M60), it's a good mod but new tanks would be better.

As it was, they were fitted with armoured fuel tanks attached to the rear for Vietnam service, which gave extra endurance.

AWM photo.
1769036624079.png
 
Rule of cool said:
I'd think that would be instead of replacement by Leopard (or M60), it's a good mod but new tanks would be better.

As it was, they were fitted with armoured fuel tanks attached to the rear for Vietnam service, which gave extra endurance.
Click to expand...
I was thinkg more a mid kife upgrade late 50s early 60s with possibilty of the 105mm upgrade aswell. As someone u works with heavy machinery it baffles me as to why petrol engines where even considered for tanks and afvs
 
Caryina2642 said:
I was thinkg more a mid kife upgrade late 50s early 60s with possibilty of the 105mm upgrade aswell. As someone u works with heavy machinery it baffles me as to why petrol engines where even considered for tanks and afvs
Click to expand...

The Centurion was a WW2 tank, 6 were sent to Germany in May 1945 for combat evaluation. There weren't many ~700hp class diesel engines around in 1945 and even into the 50s, so the British used the RR Merlin without the supercharger as it was available in large numbers.

The Israelis didn't start re-engaging their Centurions with diesels until 1970 and most users never did; Australia isn't the lone ranger in that regard.
 
Caryina2642 said:
You dont need a big diesel producing the same hp it just needs to produce the same torque or more. Which the DD 12V-71T does
Click to expand...
You do need the same HP for speed. The torque just gets you moving.

And how physically big is a 12V71, compared to a Merlin/Meteor?
Quick google/AI answers says the 71 is ~12" longer, 18" wider, and 20" taller. Good luck packing a 12V71 into a Centurion engine bay.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You do need the same HP for speed. The torque just gets you moving.

And how physically big is a 12V71, compared to a Merlin/Meteor?
Quick google/AI answers says the 71 is ~12" longer, 18" wider, and 20" taller. Good luck packing a 12V71 into a Centurion engine bay.
Click to expand...
Torque is more important than HP for heavy vehicles like tanks. For speed thats where your gears come into play. I was just using the 12V71 as an example as i knew it was around. Another exanple would be the continental AV1790 which was used in M48A3 and swedish centurions
 
Caryina2642 said:
Torque is more important than HP for heavy vehicles like tanks. For speed thats where your gears come into play. I was just using the 12V71 as an example as i knew it was around. Another exanple would be the continental AV1790 which was used in M48A3 and swedish centurions
Click to expand...
I think the big problem would really be over in the procurement and logistics side. Diesel tanks, along with diesel M113s, would suggest swapping the rest of the vehicles and generators and etc over to diesel, which is a pretty big ask in general.

But nobody really started pushing that till the 1970s, IIRC.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think the big problem would really be over in the procurement and logistics side. Diesel tanks, along with diesel M113s, would suggest swapping the rest of the vehicles and generators and etc over to diesel, which is a pretty big ask in general.

But nobody really started pushing that till the 1970s, IIRC.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt swap everything over to diesel, lile your big generators, trucks and afvs yes. Though your things like little 5 to 10 HP water pumps, fuel pumps and small generators keep petrol as there small size means diesel is to inefficent
 
I think a diesel swap makes the Centurion a better tank, but I think it would push its replacement out to the 80s and that makes for a worse Army.
 
Caryina2642 said:
I wouldnt swap everything over to diesel, lile your big generators, trucks and afvs yes. Though your things like little 5 to 10 HP water pumps, fuel pumps and small generators keep petrol as there small size means diesel is to inefficent
Click to expand...
Then you still have the problem of hauling gasoline around. With the flammability problems.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Then you still have the problem of hauling gasoline around. With the flammability problems.
Click to expand...
Your not going to be able to replace petrol for everything, yes for tanks, afvs, trucks, land rovers being diesel is the right option. But your going to need petrol in remote area operations to run small generators, weiders, air compreasors, water pumps ect where you cant yoir heavy trucks in with a big diesel generator, only land rovera with trailiers and AFVs
 
Rule of cool said:
I think a diesel swap makes the Centurion a better tank, but I think it would push its replacement out to the 80s and that makes for a worse Army.
Click to expand...
Definitely does make them better tanks. They would still need replacing when the did OTL due to obsolcent optics and general wear down on parts
 
Caryina2642 said:
Definitely does make them better tanks. They would still need replacing when the did OTL due to obsolcent optics and general wear down on parts
Click to expand...

You wouldn't go to the effort of changing out the drive train and leave in all the other old stuff. It would be a major mid life upgrade in order to get worthwhile value out of the drive train change.

It's the same with ships and planes, at 15 years you either spend big money to get another 10-15 years or replace in 5 years.
 
Last edited:
Caryina2642 said:
Your not going to be able to replace petrol for everything, yes for tanks, afvs, trucks, land rovers being diesel is the right option. But your going to need petrol in remote area operations to run small generators, weiders, air compreasors, water pumps ect where you cant yoir heavy trucks in with a big diesel generator, only land rovera with trailiers and AFVs
Click to expand...
The US Army did.

The USN did.
 
Rule of cool said:
You wouldn't go to the effort of changing out the drive train and leave in all the other old stuff. It would be a major mid life upgrade in order to get worthwhile value out of the drive train change.

It's the same with ships and planes, at 15 years you either spend big money to get another 10-15 years or replace in 5 years.
Click to expand...
Depends on when the mid life upgrade occurs if it occurs. If its all finished by say 1965 then by Mid 70s everything wpuld start to be wearing out again, not just the drive train but everything else in the tanks. Like all the electrical stuff. Keep in mind the 1st centurion arrived in australia in 1952 and they exited serivice in 1977 thats 25 yrs of service. So a mid life upgraded would have been needed in the 60s anyway
 
Scott Kenny said:
The US Army did.

The USN did.
Click to expand...
They are bigger organisations than the adf with more money. Im basing what im saying on my experiences here in australia where all our heavy machinery is diesel powered and all out small stuff has been mainly petrol powered with some small exceptions
 
Caryina2642 said:
They are bigger organisations than the adf with more money. Im basing what im saying on my experiences here in australia where all our heavy machinery is diesel powered and all out small stuff has been mainly petrol powered with some small exceptions
Click to expand...
And that is absolutely a logistical fustercluck. You know several idiots have put petrol into diesel vehicles or vice versa, and have destroyed the engines as a result.

Lower powered generators, air compressors, pumps, etc are a small price to pay for not having idjits destroying things.
 
Scott Kenny said:
And that is absolutely a logistical fustercluck. You know several idiots have put petrol into diesel vehicles or vice versa, and have destroyed the engines as a result.

Lower powered generators, air compressors, pumps, etc are a small price to pay for not having idjits destroying things.
Click to expand...
I dont know what yous have in the states but here we have colour coded jerry cans for all the different fuels. Which i know is 100% proof but it is pretty darn effective.
Again u cant get rid of petrol cause how are army engineers be able to use chainsaws and demo saws in the field which all run off 4 or 2 stroke petrol. Same with the motorbike and 4wheel bikes the army usess
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260122_163745_Chrome.jpg
    Screenshot_20260122_163745_Chrome.jpg
    465.9 KB · Views: 8
Caryina2642 said:
Depends on when the mid life upgrade occurs if it occurs. If its all finished by say 1965 then by Mid 70s everything wpuld start to be wearing out again, not just the drive train but everything else in the tanks. Like all the electrical stuff. Keep in mind the 1st centurion arrived in australia in 1952 and they exited serivice in 1977 thats 25 yrs of service. So a mid life upgraded would have been needed in the 60s anyway
Click to expand...

The deliveries of Centurions are as follows.

• 60 Mk.3 medium tanks purchased in 1949 and delivered from September 1951 and were still being delivered after August 1952 were subsequently upgraded to Mk. 5 standard between 1957 and 1961. (ARN 169000 - 169059)
• 51 MK. 5 medium tanks purchased in late 1954 and delivered during 1955 - 56. (ARN 169060 - 169110)
• 4 Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARV) Mk. 2 ordered in late 1954 and delivered in 1955 - 56. (ARN 169111 - 169114)
• 6 Mk. 5 medium tanks delivered in 1956- 57 (ARN 169115 - 169120)
• 4 Bridge Layer Mk. 5 delivered in early 1960’s, the first arriving in September 1961. (ARN 115541 - 115544)
• 8 Mk5 and Mk5/1 medium tanks were purchased from New Zealand during 1968. The medium tanks were cannibalised for spares, and while the ARV was taken into service, it only served in Australia. (ARN 169123) A small number of New Zealand hulls were used to replace mine damaged hulls and at least one tank, ARN 169017, returned to South Vietnam for a second tour fitted with a New Zealand hull.
• 15 Mk5/1 medium tanks purchased from UK stock held in Hong Kong arriving in 1972 (ARN 169124 - 169138).

Vietnam gave the fleet a good shake up. A total of 58 Australian Centurion tanks (various variants including gun tanks, dozers, bridgelayers, etc.) served in South Vietnam, 42 were damaged, six assessed as beyond repair. Those that did not get damaged were sent back to Australia after 2500 track miles. So by the early 70s it would be difficult to say X or Y tank was old and therefore worn out.

The big issue with the Centurion by the early 70 isn't really their condition but their overall capability. 1970 is when Israel started replacing the Metor and manual transmission in their Centurions, and they were still in active service in the early 80s. Australia's Centurions need the 105mm gun, new diesel/automatic drivetrain and fire control, or to be replaced.
 
As for previous post.
1) How did the Army recover their Centurions in 1951-55?
2) How did ARN 169017 (and others) retain it's serial number when getting a new hull? The engine/trans are interchangeable units, as are all sorts of other major assemblies, even the turret is removable and presumably interchangeable. Perhaps they didn't build up this tank from a pool of parts, but instead transferred most of ARN 169017's parts to the Kiwi hull. Or perhaps serial numbers are reserved and whatever was cobbled together was given this number.
 
Rule of cool said:
The deliveries of Centurions are as follows.

• 60 Mk.3 medium tanks purchased in 1949 and delivered from September 1951 and were still being delivered after August 1952 were subsequently upgraded to Mk. 5 standard between 1957 and 1961. (ARN 169000 - 169059)
• 51 MK. 5 medium tanks purchased in late 1954 and delivered during 1955 - 56. (ARN 169060 - 169110)
• 4 Armoured Recovery Vehicles (ARV) Mk. 2 ordered in late 1954 and delivered in 1955 - 56. (ARN 169111 - 169114)
• 6 Mk. 5 medium tanks delivered in 1956- 57 (ARN 169115 - 169120)
• 4 Bridge Layer Mk. 5 delivered in early 1960’s, the first arriving in September 1961. (ARN 115541 - 115544)
• 8 Mk5 and Mk5/1 medium tanks were purchased from New Zealand during 1968. The medium tanks were cannibalised for spares, and while the ARV was taken into service, it only served in Australia. (ARN 169123) A small number of New Zealand hulls were used to replace mine damaged hulls and at least one tank, ARN 169017, returned to South Vietnam for a second tour fitted with a New Zealand hull.
• 15 Mk5/1 medium tanks purchased from UK stock held in Hong Kong arriving in 1972 (ARN 169124 - 169138).

Vietnam gave the fleet a good shake up. A total of 58 Australian Centurion tanks (various variants including gun tanks, dozers, bridgelayers, etc.) served in South Vietnam, 42 were damaged, six assessed as beyond repair. Those that did not get damaged were sent back to Australia after 2500 track miles. So by the early 70s it would be difficult to say X or Y tank was old and therefore worn out.

The big issue with the Centurion by the early 70 isn't really their condition but their overall capability. 1970 is when Israel started replacing the Metor and manual transmission in their Centurions, and they were still in active service in the early 80s. Australia's Centurions need the 105mm gun, new diesel/automatic drivetrain and fire control, or to be replaced.
Click to expand...
Thats why im saying upgrade them in the early 60s before vietnam deployment, during the indonesia confrontation as the reason for it maybe. Upgraded them with the Continental AV1790, manual gearbox, the 105mm gun and fire control. After heavy use in Vietnam it would then make sense to replace them in Regular service and the centurions that are still good conditions keep for reserve units
 
Caryina2642 said:
Thats why im saying upgrade them in the early 60s before vietnam deployment, during the indonesia confrontation as the reason for it maybe. Upgraded them with the Continental AV1790, manual gearbox, the 105mm gun and fire control. After heavy use in Vietnam it would then make sense to replace them in Regular service and the centurions that are still good conditions keep for reserve units
Click to expand...

If any mods are done to the Centurions in the early 60s the 105mm gun would be first on the list.
 
Caryina2642 said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Kidds would have been a great acquisition, one of the reasons they were not bought was that it would have required the early retirement of two FFGs to free up crew and ironically, issues with the FFGUP program resulted in the retirement of two of them anyway. The other point with the Kidds is that they had already received NTU and had SM-2, which would have removed the need for having FFGUP at all. They would have given the RAN its planned 16 majors and there would have been no drop to 11 and now 9-10.

This would have facilitated the replacement of the remaining four FFGs with something perfectly good enough, maybe the F-100 as actually acquired, or possibly a modified F-123 or 124, even an evolution of the ANZAC and led to a continuous ship-building program two decades earlier, as the eventual Kidd replacement followed the FFG replacements.

As for "for but not with", the reason the ANZACs are as capable as they are now is that they were designed to be upgraded. Had they been built to the standard you suggest, there would have been insufficient margin available for quad-packed ESSM, let alone the ASMD upgrades. Assuming the ANZACs were followed by and FFG replacement, it could have been baselined with an evolved ASMD configuration and much larger VLS.

It took many years, but the result of the AEW&C was the Wedgetail. While getting something earlier would have been nice, IMO, that capability was worth waiting for.

More Blackhawks would have been sensible, and more Seahawks instead of fluffing around with Super Seasprites.
 
Rule of cool said:
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.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, ex RAAC people have told me they were being looked at as an option. The plan was that if the war looked like expanding, 1 AR and 5/7, plus support elements, would go, but would be reequipped with German vehicles. Not sure if there would have been Leo 1 A5s, or maybe Leo 2s, but likely Marder AIFVs as well. Interestingly, these were also offered to us by Germany as they drew their forces down post-Cold War.
 
Rule of cool said:
If any mods are done to the Centurions in the early 60s the 105mm gun would be first on the list.
Click to expand...
They were upgraded to Mk 5 in every way except for the gun. It was looked at but determined to not be worth the cost. It should be noted, the tanks the US used in Vietnam were the 90mm gunned M-48s and not the upgraded models or M-60s, these were for Europe.
 
The Meteor was a perfectly adequate engine for the Centurion, and reengining was a nonstarter as they were replaced in the 70s. It is too bad RAAC never got the proposed Comets to equip CMF cavalry units, it used Meteor as well. Diesel is great but even the US was still using petrol/gasoline in most of their tank fleet prior to later M-48s and the M-60. By the M-1 they were burning kerosene and the huge number of helicopters in service with the army made the use of this fuel as good as diesel. RAAC M-1 burn diesel.
 
In the mid-seventies, the Canadian army's first choice to solve the increasing obsolescence and general wear and tear on it's Centurion force. Was quite simple refurbishment and modernization of the Centurion force
As I recall Israel Tal was involved and included a complete rebuild package . Diesel engine new transmissions ( really badly needed ,google Mexican overdrive and Canadian Centurion) FCS, .
They had a hell of a time selling it to the Government . Which had been working really hard at divesting any sort of heavy armour.
But they managed and for a short while it looked like that was going be it.
However after a NATO meeting in Germany the Prime Minister of the day announced we'd be buying 114 Leopard 1s.
 
Last edited:
Thinking about the old and bolds who told me about the German armour plans for 1 AR and the Gulf War caused me to recall other conversations about the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s I had with them.

In the 2000s I was working on a project with a very large cohort of ex ADF technical soldiers, sailors and aircraftsmen. They had about 20 years or more on me so where in uniform during the 70s and 80s, some into the 90s, some were working on the investigations into replacement programs for various systems. It was a defence site and the info was stuff that didn't happen. I was lucky, as in any other situation, they wouldn't have opened up.

It doesn't mean what they told me was entirely accurate, or, for that matter, that I have recalled it all correctly. I obviously don't have anything written to cite.

  • Replacing Mirage with a mix of 50 F-15 and 50 Harriers, on the assumption that the RAN would replace Melbourne and the RAAF could surge their Harriers in support of the FAA. (the assumption being the FAA would get their own Harriers or Seaharriers.
  • Germany offered to cascade a mechanised brigades worth of surplus Tanks and AIFVs to Australia.
  • Many in the RAN, including those who served on the Perth class, and loved them, thought the County Class would have been a better overall acquisition. This makes sense as going American resulted in massive overheads in training, logistics and multiple headaches in career progression as we effectively ended up with three separate fleets until the 2000s, while the Counties would have been an incremental change using many already in-service systems.
  • Multiple sources saying there was a desire to increase carrier numbers to 3, one each coast and one in reserve, but this was dependent on Harriers and helicopters.
  • An increase in combatant numbers to 23 through the acquisition of GPs frigates to supplement the six destroyers and six DEs. (Interesting when you look at the current plans 3 Hobarts, 6 Hunters and 11 Mogamis, all that is missing is an extra 3 DDGs and the three carriers)
  • The acquisition of a lead in fighter trainer and light strike aircraft to replace the Sabres filling that role. There was a series of CAC designs, including one with swing wings (I believe there is a mock up at the RAAF Museum in Point Cook). Building up to 100 Jaguars was also mentioned, and I did see an article in Flight Magazine mention that too.
  • Buying 100 M-1A2s to convert 2 Cav into a tank regiment.
  • Some initial studies into life extending the Perth Class, including converting them to GTs and diesels.
  • Tenix proposal for the FFGUP replacing the Mk-13 with a Mk-41 and installing a second VLS aft in place of one of the two hangars.
  • Replacing the Perths with 3 US built Flight IIA Burkes
  • Replacing the Perths and first 4 FFGs with a modified Type 123
  • Dropping Standard and concentrating on ESSM
  • Building 2 Tobruks for the RN in a barter deal for a new build, possibly modified Invincible. (to replace RN losses in the Falklands and take advantage of the hot lines in each nation)
  • The most extreme was acquiring SSBNs to have an independent deterrent.
  • Selling up to 40/50 of our near new F/A-18A/B to Canada and building additional aircraft for the RAAF but C/D models and maybe replacing the F-111 with F/A-18D to keep Australian production going.
  • Transfer of surplus US Army AH-1
  • Licence build the Mirage F-1 and be the production hub for any sales in our quadrant of the globe.
  • Licence build Hawk trainers and be the production hub for any sales in our quadrant of the globe.
The more I think about it, the more that comes back to me. It's probably worth sharing, along with the context.

Obviously, not all of this could have happened, but it would be interesting to generate a timeline on what could have happened and how.
 
Last edited:
  • The most extreme was acquiring SSBNs to have an independent deterrent.
Now….That makes an interesting scenario. At one time the U.K. Government/Royal Navy were looking at the pro’s and con’s of operating one or more of their own SSBN’s East of Suez. There was talk of building a new Submarine Depot (Support) Ship, suitably modified to support SSBN’s and SSN’s, or, utilise U.S. facilities out of Guam.
Needless to say this was still-born and if nothing else, probably more of a pipe dream.
Now, IF Australia had joined the U.K. SSBN programme, we have a Commonwealth base becoming available for both their own and U.K. vessels!

EDIT:
I found the file and have attached it here…
 

Attachments

  • Polaris East of Suez DEFE 5_165.pdf
    7.6 MB · Views: 11
Last edited:
If I were king of Australia in the 60s through to the 90s.

Accept that fixed-wing carrier aviation was unaffordable and reshape the RAN accordingly:
  • Convert Melbourne to a helicopter carrier instead of buying Tracker and Skyhawk and configure Sydney as one as well. Each to serve as the centre of a "Cruiser" Squadron.
  • Join the Harrier program, buy, ideally, licence produce, additional Sea Kings.
  • Select a smaller Harrier carrier or escort /command cruiser design, i.e. VT Harrier Carrier, and build five of them, two replacing Sydney and Melbourne.
  • Build a DLG to escort each Harrier carrier.
  • Build a specialised ASW frigate or destroyer to escort each carrier.
  • Build 5 AORs or AOEs
  • Build ten GP frigates to support the cruiser squadrons and to provide longer range, poor weather (monsoonal) border protection.
  • Build twenty long-range multi-role medium combatants that have a baseline border protection role and are designed for but not with, systems that permit any of these ships to be employed as mine sweepers, ASW escorts, missile corvettes, hydrographic/oceanographic survey, fast logistic transport, assault transport (i.e. Commando and special forces support)
  • Five or six SSNs from the UK
  • Make 92 Wing joint service with RAAF, RAN, and Army personnel.
  • Transfer all Amphib to the army control, but make the group command a joint force.
  • Form a joint Marine combat and logistics force to support army amphib but also the assault transport configured combatants and any other capability that requires.
I'm tired and will continue later.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom