Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[Volkodav]

• 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!

There were plans for nuclear weapons for years.

The F-111 was acquired in part to be a nuclear delivery platform, and Australia's involvement in the UK's nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs was in support of this. The project to build a reactor at Jervis Bay was part of it as well.

Ironically, even Labor wasn't diabolically opposed; they kicked off the original agreement with the Brits in the late 40s, and nuclear power generation was an aspiration of Whitlam's. In fact, one of the driving forces behind the Khemlani Loans Affair was to fund a massive infrastructure program to modernise Australia's national transport and power grids, including nuclear power. Believe it or not, the objections to the plan were about the source of the funding; it was seen as inappropriate to accept cheap loans from oil-rich Arab nations, instead of paying more from the UK or US, then lying to parliament about it.

Imagine Australia's economy today if we had spent the 70s and 80s (maybe 90s too) building a national power grid, highway and rail systems, and quite possibly our own uranium processing and enrichment? Those types of projects would have been transformational and when the resources boom arrived in the 2000s, the economy would have been much better set up to absorb and take full advantage of.

 

[H_K]

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.

The ADF could have operated on the left flank in Iraq, with the lighter forces of XVIII Airborne Corps, which included the 82nd and 101st Airborne and the French Daguet division.

The French were using AMX-30B2 tanks, VAB APCs, and towed 155mm howitzers, so the ADF would have been right at home with 1st AR's Leopards, the various cavalry/mechanized infantry regiments with M113s, and its M198 guns. Among the US units, the 82nd was mounted on trucks and the 101st was on foot (with helicopter support for air assault).

 

[Rule of cool]

Imagine Australia's economy today if we had spent the 70s and 80s (maybe 90s too) building a national power grid, highway and rail systems, and quite possibly our own uranium processing and enrichment? Those types of projects would have been transformational and when the resources boom arrived in the 2000s, the economy would have been much better set up to absorb and take full advantage of.

On my national resilience shopping list would be.

• Have the MOATA training reactor in Melbourne instead of Lucas Heights. This gets nuclear reactors out of their Sydney hidey hole.
• Complete the Jervis Bay nuclear power station.
• Have a 200,000+ barrel a day oil refinery built somewhere during the 70s or 80s. (IIUC 200,000 b/d is the threshold for economic operation these days and our biggest refinery in Geelong only maxes out at 130,000 b/d)
• Have a Fischer-Tropsch process 'natural gas to liquid fuel' plant built in the 2000s, once oil production starts to decline
• At least 2 train line routes from the southern and eastern states to Darwin
• Have a low-end (~200-220km/h tilt trains) High-Speed rail network linking Adl-Mel-Syd-Bris. Proper 300km/h+ high speed is too difficult for Australian conditions. This would be a massive asset in times of fuel shortage.
• Cease reducing tariffs on the Auto industry after the 2008 GFC

 

[Rule of cool]

The ADF could have operated on the left flank in Iraq, with the lighter forces of XVIII Airborne Corps, which included the 82nd and 101st Airborne and the French Daguet division.

The French were using AMX-30B2 tanks, VAB APCs, and towed 155mm howitzers, so the ADF would have been right at home with 1st AR's Leopards, the various cavalry/mechanized infantry regiments with M113s, and its M198 guns. Among the US units, the 82nd was mounted on trucks and the 101st was on foot (with helicopter support for air assault).

The issue is that the 1st Brigade; 1 AR, 2 Cav, 5/7 RAR mech, M198 regt and cats and dogs, was only kept at about 70% of establishment during the 80s. If it was to be deployed to Saudi Arabia the rest of the Army would have to be 'combed out' to get this Brigade up to establishment strength and then exercised and shaken down in order to bring the Brigade up to the requisite standard to training and cohesion. The equipment was also well behind the curve during the 80s, as befit a unit kept at 70% of establishment for a decade, virtually every item in the brigade will need upgrades that would have been proposed but deferred or cancelled.

IIUC 3rd Brigade, a light infantry unit, was kept at 90%+ of establishment during the 80s and had at least one battalion on short notice to deploy. However, sending a light infantry battalion to Desert Storm isn't a good contribution compared to Pave Tack and Recce F111s and the SASR which can hunt for Scuds alongside 22 SAS and Delta.

 

[Caryina2642]

If I were king of Australia in the 60s through to the 90s.

I feel as though if money and manpower wasnt an issue the best fleet for the RAN in the late 60s and 70s wpuld have been
Surface Fleet

• 3x Majestic Class Carriers (Upgrade all 3 to Karel Doorman standard, buy HMS Leviathan from uk before its scraped) Air group would be Skyhawks, Trackers, couple Wessex for SAR and Tracers if they are able to operate of them
• 3x Escort Cruisers carryings 8ish Wessex/Sea King Helos, with Tartar and Ikara
• 6x Modified CFA DDGs
• 6x River Class AS Friagtes
• 8x Australianised Type 21 GP Frigates
• That gives u 3 carriers and 23 escorts like proposed in the 60s

Submarine force

• 8x oberons or 4x oberons and 5x SSNs if the US allows the UK to do it

Auxiliary Forces

• 4+ AOR/AOEs
• 2+ Stores Carrirrs
• 1x Destroyer Tender
• 1x Submarine Tender

Amphibious Forces

• 4+ LSM Mk2s
• 2x LPHs or LSDs type vessels
• 1x AKA

 

[Caryina2642]

Have a low-end (~200-220km/h tilt trains) High-Speed rail network linking Adl-Mel-Syd-Bris. Proper 300km/h+ high speed is too difficult for Australian conditions. This would be a massive asset in times of fuel shortage.

180km Tilt Trains are most realistic for australian conditions unless major track upgradeds and elecification happended as well for 200km+ operations

At least 2 train line routes from the southern and eastern states to Darwin

I would have 3 lines to darwin. The current day line, the orginal proposal for the darwin line from bourke to mt isa and a line to perth via brome and the pilbara

I would also standardised all of the south australian network and as much of the victorian network as possible

 

[Rule of cool]

180km Tilt Trains are most realistic for australian conditions unless major track upgradeds and elecification happended as well for 200km+ operations

There are 3 long proposed rail deviations in NSW, Centennial, Wentworth and Hoare, that would build 190km of new track on new much better alignment. This would cut 60km from Mel-Syd, but more importantly allow much higher speeds through the great dividing range, especially for tilt trains. The track between about Seymour to Wagga Wagga is straight enough to allow for ~200km/h, which can be achieved with diesel trains, after all the 160km/h XPT is derived from the 200km/h HST 125.

 

[Caryina2642]

There are 3 long proposed rail deviations in NSW, Centennial, Wentworth and Hoare, that would build 190km of new track on new much better alignment. This would cut 60km from Mel-Syd, but more importantly allow much higher speeds through the great dividing range, especially for tilt trains. The track between about Seymour to Wagga Wagga is straight enough to allow for ~200km/h, which can be achieved with diesel trains, after all the 160km/h XPT is derived from the 200km/h HST 125.

I was being generalised for 180km/h for most of the current track yes the new diversion would allow for 200km/h in sections between melb n syd, but for syn to canberra & brisbane 180km/h is the highest without major track deviations. Mel to adelaide u could get 200km/h all the way to adelaide hills

 

[Volkodav]

On my national resilience shopping list would be.

• Have the MOATA training reactor in Melbourne instead of Lucas Heights. This gets nuclear reactors out of their Sydney hidey hole.
• Complete the Jervis Bay nuclear power station.
• Have a 200,000+ barrel a day oil refinery built somewhere during the 70s or 80s. (IIUC 200,000 b/d is the threshold for economic operation these days and our biggest refinery in Geelong only maxes out at 130,000 b/d)
• Have a Fischer-Tropsch process 'natural gas to liquid fuel' plant built in the 2000s, once oil production starts to decline
• At least 2 train line routes from the southern and eastern states to Darwin
• Have a low-end (~200-220km/h tilt trains) High-Speed rail network linking Adl-Mel-Syd-Bris. Proper 300km/h+ high speed is too difficult for Australian conditions. This would be a massive asset in times of fuel shortage.
• Cease reducing tariffs on the Auto industry after the 2008 GFC

IMO, tariff reductions aren't what killed the automotive industry. It was very close to sustainable.

Toyota's decision was because without at least one other car maker in country, the supply chain would be unsustainable.

Holden was because Deny Moony broke from Peter Hannenburger's proven high profit, niche model strategy and went for a volume and discount strategy.

Ford was killed by a series of global corporate decisions on certain models. i.e. using the Volvo XC90 instead of the Territory for the US, using a live axle on the Mustang instead of the superior Falcon platform and control blade arrangement, not looking at the Territory or Falcon for the US police market. Not building the Focus in Australia, not building the Ranger/Explorer (although Australian designed) in Australia.

Capping it off was the government prioritising primary exports in free trade agreements over Australian-manufactured products.

 

[Rule of cool]

MO, tariff reductions aren't what killed the automotive industry.

They certainly didn't help.

 

[Volkodav]

They certainly didn't help.

They didn't, but their removal incentivised many improvements in the industry. We were approaching and sometimes exceeding worlds best practice. A major issue was foreign ownership and partisan decisions on what the Australian subsidiaries were allowed to develop and build.

For example, Holden and Ford both had overhead cam engines developed and ready to go in the 70s. The RallyArt Magna was detuned and had originally been intended as a mass-produced VRX. The US killed many Australian products because they were literally better than the US equivalents, and you couldn't have a Holden outperforming a Cadillac or Corvette.

Australians were in senior design, engineering and management positions throughout the global automotive industry. Peter Arcadipane comes to mind, as do Jac Nasser and Geoff Polites, Australians who were regarded as among the best at what they did in the world. Yet locally, we had a narrative that Australia couldn't competitively build cars.

IMO the issue is our ruling classes are lawyers and bankers who believe the myth that Australia is a rural, agrarian society.

 

[1635yankee]

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.

Well, I would argue the swept-wing Mirage F1 was better in almost every way to the delta Mirages, so that's one option. The UK was kind of out of the fighter business at that time (the Lightning could have done a great job protecting Canberra from an attack by the air forces of New South Wales), so that pretty much leaves France, the USSR, and the USA. As a liberal, I'd not buy military equipment from the USSR. What fighters did the US have on offer and in production in the time Australia was looking to buy? I think only the Phantom.

 

[Volkodav]

Well, I would argue the swept-wing Mirage F1 was better in almost every way to the delta Mirages, so that's one option. The UK was kind of out of the fighter business at that time (the Lightning could have done a great job protecting Canberra from an attack by the air forces of New South Wales), so that pretty much leaves France, the USSR, and the USA. As a liberal, I'd not buy military equipment from the USSR. What fighters did the US have on offer and in production in the time Australia was looking to buy? I think only the Phantom.

The Mirage F-1 was too late for this but was offered to the RAAF in the 70s, including a deal to build them in Australia for export.

Had Australia gone for a more advanced type between the Sabre and Mirage, the F-1 may have had a look in a s replacement for that.

 

[Pioneer]

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?

Yeah, I'd think P-3 AEW or C-130 AEW.
At the end of the day, the E-3/Nimrod AEW were extremely expensive to purchase and operate, and dare I say overly capable for what the RAAF really needed, IMO.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

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.

In which case, the Australian Army might consider acquiring the OTO Melara/Fiat OF-40, instead of the Leopard 1A3. After all, for all intent and purposes, the OF-40 was very similar to the Leo 1A3 [The OF-40 follows the layout of the Leopard, especially in the hull. The engine, transmission and tracks are the same, as are the crew and ammunition layout.]. Except, importantly, unlike the Leo 1A3, the OF-40 was tropicalized from the getgo, aand it had provisions for an air conditioner! Two very important qualities the Leo 1A3 detrimentally lacked and both tank and crews suffered dramatically for when they were moved to the NT...


Regards
Pioneer

 

[H_K]

Well, I would argue the swept-wing Mirage F1 was better in almost every way to the delta Mirages, so that's one option. The UK was kind of out of the fighter business at that time (the Lightning could have done a great job protecting Canberra from an attack by the air forces of New South Wales), so that pretty much leaves France, the USSR, and the USA. As a liberal, I'd not buy military equipment from the USSR. What fighters did the US have on offer and in production in the time Australia was looking to buy? I think only the Phantom.

If range was a primary concern then the best US option might be the Spey Crusader which was being proposed for the RN in 1963. Large fuel fraction, fuel efficient engine (-18% SFC vs the J57), more thrust... what's not to like?

Since the Mirage IIIO was ordered in annual batches (30 in 1961, 30 in 1962, 40 in 1963, 10 in 1964), perhaps the latter batches could have been replaced by Spey Crusaders, leading to a mixed Mirage-Crusader fleet? Say 60 Mirages + 60 Crusaders?

 

[Volkodav]

Yeah, I'd think P-3 AEW or C-130 AEW.
At the end of the day, the E-3/Nimrod AEW were extremely expensive to purchase and operate, and dare I say overly capable for what the RAAF really needed, IMO.

Regards
Pioneer

The prototype P-3AEW was built on an ex-RAAF P-3B.

This would have been a no brainer for the RAAF in the 80s, even converting them locally using the surplus B airframes. Still if it hadn't been acquired by the 90s, Wedgetail would have been worth waiting for.

The thing is, ideally, they would have had something before that, AEW Avenger, Skyraider Gannet with the FAA and the same radar is fitted to a Lincoln or Neptune etc.

 

[Volkodav]

In which case, the Australian Army might consider acquiring the OTO Melara/Fiat OF-40, instead of the Leopard 1A3. After all, for all intent and purposes, the OF-40 was very similar to the Leo 1A3 [The OF-40 follows the layout of the Leopard, especially in the hull. The engine, transmission and tracks are the same, as are the crew and ammunition layout.]. Except, importantly, unlike the Leo 1A3, the OF-40 was tropicalized from the getgo, aand it had provisions for an air conditioner! Two very important qualities the Leo 1A3 detrimentally lacked and both tank and crews suffered dramatically for when they were moved to the NT...


Regards
Pioneer

OF-40 or an Australian spec, locally built Leopard.

This is the big if.

Assuming Australia, following WWII, goes with the proposed mechanised structure of three tank brigades, this would require approximately 750 tanks. That is assuming a regiment having three squadrons of 14 tanks, plus a couple more in RHQ, so say 45, round this up to 50. The structure was meant to be five regiments to a brigade, so 250 per brigade.

The initial tranche would have been the wartime fleet of Grants, Stuarts and Matildas, supplemented with Churchills immediately after the war. Then there were surplus fleets, i.e. Chaffees, Shermans, Cromwells, Churchills available in fairly short order, finally, there would be the new build options, Walker Bulldogs, M-47, M-48, Centurion etc.

This would be the CMF and strategic reserve stockpile, so low manpower requirements compared to the old infantry militia structure, but a higher training overhead. The thing is, though, the skills to maintain and operate armour would be useful for the economy as a whole, so a worthwhile investment in training volunteers and conscripts.

The first Bde would be the new tanks, the second the surplus vehicles and the third, the wartime fleet.

By the late 50s the wartime fleet would be worn out and it would be time to cascade the war surplus to the third Bde, and the new to the second Bde, building new tanks for the first Bde. Thus, from the early 60s, Australia could plan to build/buy 250 tanks a decade.

I enjoy speculating about equipment as much as anyone, probably more than most, but I find looking at structures even more interesting. It's having a flexible, but robust structure that lets you use the equipment effectively, probably more so than doctrine.

I mention the fifteen regiments in three brigades because that is the planned structure that would have been the starting point to evolve what existed in the 1970s when assessing new gear.

 

[Rule of cool]

They didn't, but their removal incentivised many improvements in the industry. We were approaching and sometimes exceeding worlds best practice. A major issue was foreign ownership and partisan decisions on what the Australian subsidiaries were allowed to develop and build.

For example, Holden and Ford both had overhead cam engines developed and ready to go in the 70s. The RallyArt Magna was detuned and had originally been intended as a mass-produced VRX. The US killed many Australian products because they were literally better than the US equivalents, and you couldn't have a Holden outperforming a Cadillac or Corvette.

Australians were in senior design, engineering and management positions throughout the global automotive industry. Peter Arcadipane comes to mind, as do Jac Nasser and Geoff Polites, Australians who were regarded as among the best at what they did in the world. Yet locally, we had a narrative that Australia couldn't competitively build cars.

IMO the issue is our ruling classes are lawyers and bankers who believe the myth that Australia is a rural, agrarian society.

Don't get me wrong, the VK Commodore had a 54% tariff, which is way too high and needed to come down. However instead of a dogma to get tariffs to zero Governments should have been searching for a tariff 'sweet spot' that balanced some local incentive to produce with the realities of a globalised world.

 

[Rule of cool]

Well, I would argue the swept-wing Mirage F1 was better in almost every way to the delta Mirages, so that's one option. The UK was kind of out of the fighter business at that time (the Lightning could have done a great job protecting Canberra from an attack by the air forces of New South Wales), so that pretty much leaves France, the USSR, and the USA. As a liberal, I'd not buy military equipment from the USSR. What fighters did the US have on offer and in production in the time Australia was looking to buy? I think only the Phantom.

Of course the F1 was better than the III, but I'm talking about the 1960 requirement not the 70s requirement.

FWIW the Lightning's short range is a persistent myth, its flight endurance wasn't as bad as is often portrayed, and is usually compared to the outlier Phantom rather than other similar aircraft.

 

[Rule of cool]

If range was a primary concern then the best US option might be the Spey Crusader which was being proposed for the RN in 1963. Large fuel fraction, fuel efficient engine (-18% SFC vs the J57), more thrust... what's not to like?

Since the Mirage IIIO was ordered in annual batches (30 in 1961, 30 in 1962, 40 in 1963, 10 in 1964), perhaps the latter batches could have been replaced by Spey Crusaders, leading to a mixed Mirage-Crusader fleet? Say 60 Mirages + 60 Crusaders?

The RAAF Mirages didn't even get the 9K-10 engine they would have liked in later batches, getting a whole other fleet of previous generation aircraft of a new and untested variant isn't good procurement or fleet management practice.

 

[Rule of cool]

In which case, the Australian Army might consider acquiring the OTO Melara/Fiat OF-40, instead of the Leopard 1A3. After all, for all intent and purposes, the OF-40 was very similar to the Leo 1A3 [The OF-40 follows the layout of the Leopard, especially in the hull. The engine, transmission and tracks are the same, as are the crew and ammunition layout.]. Except, importantly, unlike the Leo 1A3, the OF-40 was tropicalized from the getgo, aand it had provisions for an air conditioner! Two very important qualities the Leo 1A3 detrimentally lacked and both tank and crews suffered dramatically for when they were moved to the NT...


Regards
Pioneer

If the Army did a mid-life update on the Centurion and was looking to replace it in the 80s I doubt even the Leopard 1 would get a look in, let alone the OF40. By then a whole new generation of tanks was in production; Leopard 2, Challenger (or Khahlid) and Abrams, and I suspect Australia would look at those rather than a 60s generation tank like the M60 and Leopard 1 or a tank like them such as the OF40. This would be doubly so if some of the other things discussed in this thread also occurred, like the LSM Mk2 which could move these heavy tanks around Australia and the region.

 

[Rule of cool]

OF-40 or an Australian spec, locally built Leopard.

This is the big if.

Assuming Australia, following WWII, goes with the proposed mechanised structure of three tank brigades, this would require approximately 750 tanks. That is assuming a regiment having three squadrons of 14 tanks, plus a couple more in RHQ, so say 45, round this up to 50. The structure was meant to be five regiments to a brigade, so 250 per brigade.

The initial tranche would have been the wartime fleet of Grants, Stuarts and Matildas, supplemented with Churchills immediately after the war. Then there were surplus fleets, i.e. Chaffees, Shermans, Cromwells, Churchills available in fairly short order, finally, there would be the new build options, Walker Bulldogs, M-47, M-48, Centurion etc.

This would be the CMF and strategic reserve stockpile, so low manpower requirements compared to the old infantry militia structure, but a higher training overhead. The thing is, though, the skills to maintain and operate armour would be useful for the economy as a whole, so a worthwhile investment in training volunteers and conscripts.

The first Bde would be the new tanks, the second the surplus vehicles and the third, the wartime fleet.

By the late 50s the wartime fleet would be worn out and it would be time to cascade the war surplus to the third Bde, and the new to the second Bde, building new tanks for the first Bde. Thus, from the early 60s, Australia could plan to build/buy 250 tanks a decade.

I enjoy speculating about equipment as much as anyone, probably more than most, but I find looking at structures even more interesting. It's having a flexible, but robust structure that lets you use the equipment effectively, probably more so than doctrine.

I mention the fifteen regiments in three brigades because that is the planned structure that would have been the starting point to evolve what existed in the 1970s when assessing new gear.

I'm a rabid supporter of tanks in the Australian Army, but I can't for the life of me see where Australia would use multiple Armoured Brigades once the mass mobilisation model started to decline from 1957. Sure, the "3rd AIF" Corps of 2 CMF Divisions and 1 ARA Brigade is a structure onto which 2 Armoured Brigades would fit nicely, but once the Defence policy shifts to rely on the ARA having 2 Armoured Brigades becomes even more remote.

In any case not even remotely enough AFVs were purchased in the 50s to make those 2 ABs close to feasible.
51 Churchills
110 Centurions
174 Ferret Mk1
100 Ferret Mk2
15 Saladin
30 Saracen

By my reckoning that's enough for comprehensive training (with Churchills) 1 or 2 Armored regiments sustaining 5 Tank Squadrons between them, a 2 Squadron Cavalry Recce regiment of the pattern proposed in the Pentropic structure and maybe 2 or 3 scout/recce regiments of 2 or 3 sqns of Ferrets each. That means at best the 2 CMF 'Armoured Brigades' each consist of a Centurion sqn and 3 sqns of Ferrets, with the ARA components of the Corps getting a full 3 sqn Armoured Regiment and 2 Sqn Cav Regiment.

Does that sound right, or were there other plans?

 

[Rule of cool]

Yeah, I'd think P-3 AEW or C-130 AEW.
At the end of the day, the E-3/Nimrod AEW were extremely expensive to purchase and operate, and dare I say overly capable for what the RAAF really needed, IMO.

Regards
Pioneer

When I was at school I recall reading about the P3 AEW, the prototype may have even been an ex-RAAF P3B.

What Australia needed was the radar of the E2 but with the onboard control and communications closer to the E3, basically the E2 with 6 operator consoles instead of 2 and a datalink to the ship. IIUC USAF and NATO E3s had 10 operator consoles but the RAF E3s (and Nimrod AEW3s and E7 Wedgetail) initially only had 6 operator consoles.

In theory the Nimrod AEW3 was a good medium AEW aircraft, if it wasn't a total, irredeemable, mess from start to finish.

 

[Archibald]

Fun fact: there was also a C-130 AEW. Interesting aerospace quiz "which AEW aircraft has T-56 turboprops ?" the obvious answer is E-2 but also P-3 and C-130.
(drats, ninja'd by @Pioneer )

The Mirage F1-01 flew on December 23, 1966 but IOC with the french air force was only spring 1973, same as Jaguar btw. The long development time relates to the crash of the 01 on May 19, 1967, which killed Dassault chief test pilot René Bigand. He was flying low and fast when flutter got the horizontal surfaces flying away, throwing the plane into the solid ground. Bigand had no chance of survival, no time to eject. This delayed the 02/03/04 prototypes to March 1969 and beyond, after what development proceeded at reasonable pace.

The Viggen also had a freak accident in February 1967, think the prototype literally ejected and killed its test pilot.

The M53 development started in 1968 but missed the F1 bus in favor of the unsinkable Atar 9K50 (facepalm).
M53 remained a low priority until the VG Mirages, also with 9K50, were canned in 1972 in favor of a fixed wing, M53 derivate called the ACF.
Accordingly M53 development went into overdrive, first flown on a Caravelle then on a modified F1 in December 1974 : the one that lost the deal of the Century to the F-16 the next spring.
The F1-M53 was to be the low end to the ACF, but actually drove it in the grave. After what the Mirage 2000 was born and flew in 1978.

The real missed opportunity in all this was a 120% scaled-up F1 with a Tomcat engine (SNECMA TF306), called the F3. RFP in 1966, canned in spring 1967 for the F1, prototype never finished, never flown, scrapped in place.
Had the F3 survived, it could have "digested" the M53 better than the F1 - which was designed as the smallest and lightest airframe around the 9K50 which lacked thrust, being at the end of its development rope.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What fighters did the US have on offer and in production in the time Australia was looking to buy? I think only the Phantom.

Being produced in the late 1950s?

• Arguably, F-106s could have been available, though that also means being locked to Falcons and possibly the SAGE firecontrol system. Oz would need to establish a bunch of radars across the northern part of the country.
• F-8 Crusaders, especially a Spey version (possibly doubling up on a UK sale).
• F-4 Phantoms (introduced in 1958!).

 

[Pioneer]

The prototype P-3AEW was built on an ex-RAAF P-3B.

This would have been a no brainer for the RAAF in the 80s, even converting them locally using the surplus B airframes. Still if it hadn't been acquired by the 90s, Wedgetail would have been worth waiting for.

The thing is, ideally, they would have had something before that, AEW Avenger, Skyraider Gannet with the FAA and the same radar is fitted to a Lincoln or Neptune etc.

I would hope in this Alternative ADF both Australian politicians and the brass of the ADF would be astute enough to see the real cost and operational benifits of AEW and Airborne Refuelling, as the true force multipliers they are and the net benifit and in many ways the cost savings these two important platforms contribute to Australia's defence.....
For example, how many and how much does an operational fighter airbase cost to construct, supply and operate? How many flights would a fighter cost to conduct air patrols/QRF's in an air force which has no AEW? How much aviation fuel does a fighter consume on a patrol/QRF? How much does it cost in $$$$ and time in maintance hours for each hour a fighter conducts a patrol/QRF?
How many ground-based radar facilities would be needed to be constructed, supplied, defended along Australia coast [even though in real-world terms Australia was woefully equipped with a integrated sea and air radar system until the advent of the JORN, which in itself was extremely long winded in its gestation and operational readiness...]
No, for all the hype/excuses that many Western governments - including Australia has made about the 'cost' of AEW/AWACS platforms within their ORBAT's, I'm confident that the initial purchase of say four-six AEW/AWACS platforms, although expensive, would see a operational and cost benifit over the life cycle [20+ years] of such a force multiplier. [I fully appreciate that the the variety of AEW/AWACS platforms was extremely limited in the 60's, 70's and 80's.]
Irrufutably, the likes and calibre of the Boeing E-3 Sentry would be both technically difficult and expensive for a country/small military like Australia to acquire and operate. That's why, I'd even support the purchasing the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye over not having AEW at all. Sure, the E-2 has limitations when compared to the likes of the E-3. But Australia could feasibly request of Grumman a 'modified' variant to suit Australia's needs and wants:
- Fixed wings [by mitigating the folding wing arrangement of the E-2, this would save weight, mitigate maintance (time & $$$);
- Add additional fuel to the outer (now fixed) wing;
-Add an externally plumbed fixed in-flight refuelling receptor (improving both range, endurance and time on station)

I'm more than adamant that Grumman would facilitate such modifications, given the export potential such a small and cost-effective AEW platform on the world market (especially Post-Falklands War!!).

Ideally and more sensibly, my money would be on the RAAF being the launch customer for the Lockheed P-3AEW, perhaps even earlier than the 'official' P-3AEW was launched by Lockheed, as a private venture! [For, I always thought such a combination of P-3 airframe and capitalising on the E-2B's mature and proven General Electric APS-125 radar system made logical sense long before it was the 'official' P-3AEW. Not too different to the mating of the P-3 airframe and the S-3 Viking system arrangement of the Canadian CP-140 Aurora....]
Perhaps replace the P-3's four-bladed paddle-type propeller's, opertmised for low-altitude performane, with more efficiant six bladed propeller design optimised for high-altitude performance.....
Add externally plumbed fixed in-flight refuelling receptor (improving both range, endurance and time on station)

Volkodav, respectfully, given the expected longevity of such an expensive platform, I'd stipulate them being 'new-built' P-3C, as opposed to utilising RAAF's P-3B's. [The RAAF's P-3B's being transferred to Australia's Coast Guard/Boarder Surveillance organisation.].

In which case, realistically, a AEW derivative of the P-3 could have been in operational service in the early 1980's, had the Australian government/RAAF had the fortitude.

P.S. Now, given Australia's/RAAF's appreciation of the Lockheed P-3 Orion in both ASW/MP and AEW within it's ORBAT. I would fully support Australia/RAAF becoming a launch customer for the Lockheed P-7, in both ASW/MP and AEW role!!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Pioneer]

OF-40 or an Australian spec, locally built Leopard.

This is the big if.

Assuming Australia, following WWII, goes with the proposed mechanised structure of three tank brigades, this would require approximately 750 tanks. That is assuming a regiment having three squadrons of 14 tanks, plus a couple more in RHQ, so say 45, round this up to 50. The structure was meant to be five regiments to a brigade, so 250 per brigade.

The initial tranche would have been the wartime fleet of Grants, Stuarts and Matildas, supplemented with Churchills immediately after the war. Then there were surplus fleets, i.e. Chaffees, Shermans, Cromwells, Churchills available in fairly short order, finally, there would be the new build options, Walker Bulldogs, M-47, M-48, Centurion etc.

This would be the CMF and strategic reserve stockpile, so low manpower requirements compared to the old infantry militia structure, but a higher training overhead. The thing is, though, the skills to maintain and operate armour would be useful for the economy as a whole, so a worthwhile investment in training volunteers and conscripts.

The first Bde would be the new tanks, the second the surplus vehicles and the third, the wartime fleet.

By the late 50s the wartime fleet would be worn out and it would be time to cascade the war surplus to the third Bde, and the new to the second Bde, building new tanks for the first Bde. Thus, from the early 60s, Australia could plan to build/buy 250 tanks a decade.

I enjoy speculating about equipment as much as anyone, probably more than most, but I find looking at structures even more interesting. It's having a flexible, but robust structure that lets you use the equipment effectively, probably more so than doctrine.

I mention the fifteen regiments in three brigades because that is the planned structure that would have been the starting point to evolve what existed in the 1970s when assessing new gear.

Irrufutably, by 1970's, Australia should have had a well established armoured vehicle manufacturing system....perhaps something akin to the U.S. system, in which the Australian government owned the industrial complex, was responsible for its upkeep, etc.
In doing so, when a Operational Requirement/Request for Proposal is tendered by the Australian government/Army, the responding company/corporation submits their quotes, incorporating the utilisation of the said Australian government-owed facility/complex in such quotes. The winner of the OR/RfP then builds the said armoured vehicle in this facility/complex.... By doing so, costs would be mittigated by the non need for the individual company/corporation having to build a specific facility/complex to build their winning design.
For a far to long time, with the advent of the ASLAV's [Adelaid, South Australia], almost every armoured vehicle that the Australian government has acquired has been assembled/built in their own specifically built facility/complex, be it the the Bushmaster PMV [Bendigo, Victoria], the Boxer ARV [Ipswich, Queensland]. I suppose, at least, the Redback IFV the Huntsman SPH are built at the same facility/complex in Geelong, Victoria. But I guess this is only because of the intelligence of the Hanwha vs smart government thinking.....
I guess the reality is, what with Australia own little cute Military-Political Industrial Complex in full swing, derived by wholesale provatisation/outsourcing, supported by the extremely successful demonisation of government owned, Australian have quite easierly forgot the success and longevity of the likes of Government Aircraft Factories (GAF) at Fishmens Bend, Port Melbourne, Victoria, and the amount of different aircraft types that were build there over the period of some sixty years, before itself was privatised in ~1994 [I think].

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

Irrufutably, by 1970's, Australia should have had a well established armoured vehicle manufacturing system....perhaps something akin to the U.S. system, in which the Australian government owned the industrial complex, was responsible for its upkeep, etc.

I mean if the US didnt pressure the curtin government to cancel the AC-3 and AC-4 tank programs for lend lease M4s that never came. Australia would have had tanks in production in the 40s better than nearly any allie design. Possibly would have lead to continued producing our own indigenous designs through out the cold war

 

[Volkodav]

Don't get me wrong, the VK Commodore had a 54% tariff, which is way too high and needed to come down. However instead of a dogma to get tariffs to zero Governments should have been searching for a tariff 'sweet spot' that balanced some local incentive to produce with the realities of a globalised world.

There are other ways to support the automotive industry rather than tariffs. Far better to set up supporting infrastructure and align Australia with best practice in design and manufacturing.

Peter Hannenburger, Tom Phillips and Geoff Polites all introduced viable structures that increased quality and innovation, establishing world-standard design hubs and, despite small volumes, were viable and profitable.

The double whammy of GFC almost killing the parent companies, combined with the distortion of the Australian economy through the mining construction boom, undermined all of this work. Ironically, this was one of the drivers behind the Resources Super Profit Tax, the intention was to do as Norway did and create a national wealth fund to support other industries, protecting them from the temporary distortion of a resources boom.

We all know the history, the tax was watered down then killed, and the result was Australia lost multiple industries and entire cohorts of people who would have done trades or studied engineering, had to find other careers. We are still suffering to this day from the loss of those industries as they were a nursery for the very people we need now.

 

[Volkodav]

I would hope in this Alternative ADF both Australian politicians and the brass of the ADF would be astute enough to see the real cost and operational benifits of AEW and Airborne Refuelling, as the true force multipliers they are and the net benifit and in many ways the cost savings these two important platforms contribute to Australia's defence.....
For example, how many and how much does an operational fighter airbase cost to construct, supply and operate? How many flights would a fighter cost to conduct air patrols/QRF's in an air force which has no AEW? How much aviation fuel does a fighter consume on a patrol/QRF? How much does it cost in $$$$ and time in maintance hours for each hour a fighter conducts a patrol/QRF?
How many ground-based radar facilities would be needed to be constructed, supplied, defended along Australia coast [even though in real-world terms Australia was woefully equipped with a integrated sea and air radar system until the advent of the JORN, which in itself was extremely long winded in its gestation and operational readiness...]
No, for all the hype/excuses that many Western governments - including Australia has made about the 'cost' of AEW/AWACS platforms within their ORBAT's, I'm confident that the initial purchase of say four-six AEW/AWACS platforms, although expensive, would see a operational and cost benifit over the life cycle [20+ years] of such a force multiplier. [I fully appreciate that the the variety of AEW/AWACS platforms was extremely limited in the 60's, 70's and 80's.]
Irrufutably, the likes and calibre of the Boeing E-3 Sentry would be both technically difficult and expensive for a country/small military like Australia to acquire and operate. That's why, I'd even support the purchasing the Grumman E-2 Hawkeye over not having AEW at all. Sure, the E-2 has limitations when compared to the likes of the E-3. But Australia could feasibly request of Grumman a 'modified' variant to suit Australia's needs and wants:
- Fixed wings [by mitigating the folding wing arrangement of the E-2, this would save weight, mitigate maintance (time & $$$);
- Add additional fuel to the out (now fixed) wing;
-Add an externally plumbed fixed in-flight refuelling receptor (improving both range, endurance and time on station)

I'm more than adamant that Grumman would facilitate such modifications, given the export potential such a small and cost-effective AEW platform on the world market (especially Post-Falklands War!!).

Ideally and more sensibly, my money would be on the RAAF being the launch customer for the Lockheed P-3AEW, perhaps even earlier than the 'official' P-3AEW was launched by Lockheed, as a private venture! [For, I always thought such a combination of P-3 airframe and capitalising on the E-2B's mature and proven General Electric APS-125 radar system made llogical sense long before it was the 'official' P-3AEW. Not too different to the mating of the P-3 airframe and the S-3 Viking system arrangement of the Canadian CP-140 Aurora....]
Perhaps replace the P-3's four-bladed paddle-type propeller's, opertmised for low-altitude performane, with more efficiant six bladed propeller design optimised for high-altitude performance.....
Add externally plumbed fixed in-flight refuelling receptor (improving both range, endurance and time on station)

Volkodav, respectfully, given the expected longevity of such an expensive platform, I'd stipulate them being 'new-built' P-3C, as opposed to utilising RAAF's P-3B's. [The RAAF's P-3B's being transferred to Australia's Coast Guard/Boarder Surveillance organisation.].

In which case, realistically, a AEW derivative of the P-3 could have been in operational service in the early 1980's, had the Australian government/RAAF had the fortitude.

P.S. Now, given Australia's/RAAF's appreciation of the Lockheed P-3 Orion in both ASW/MP and AEW within it's ORBAT. I would fully support Australia/RAAF becoming a launch customer for the Lockheed P-7, in both ASW/MP and AEW role!!

Regards
Pioneer

I have a 1/144 Vickers Vanguard and an E-2C Hawkeye in my stash, that I intend to build it as a RAAF AEW version. My Alt History was that the Australian government decided to build the Vanguard locally to bolster commercial aviation, and took the opportunity to ensure sufficient volume by subsidising local airlines to buy them, as well as developing ASW versions, an AEW version, and transport versions for the RAAF.

 

[Pioneer]

How did the Vickers Vanguard compare in performance terms with the Lockheed L-188 Electra, Volkodav? Did it have better altitude performance?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Volkodav]

Fun fact: there was also a C-130 AEW. Interesting aerospace quiz "which AEW aircraft has T-56 turboprops ?" the obvious answer is E-2 but also P-3 and C-130.
(drats, ninja'd by @Pioneer )

The Mirage F1-01 flew on December 23, 1966 but IOC with the french air force was only spring 1973, same as Jaguar btw. The long development time relates to the crash of the 01 on May 19, 1967, which killed Dassault chief test pilot René Bigand. He was flying low and fast when flutter got the horizontal surfaces flying away, throwing the plane into the solid ground. Bigand had no chance of survival, no time to eject. This delayed the 02/03/04 prototypes to March 1969 and beyond, after what development proceeded at reasonable pace.

The Viggen also had a freak accident in February 1967, think the prototype literally ejected and killed its test pilot.

The M53 development started in 1968 but missed the F1 bus in favor of the unsinkable Atar 9K50 (facepalm).
M53 remained a low priority until the VG Mirages, also with 9K50, were canned in 1972 in favor of a fixed wing, M53 derivate called the ACF.
Accordingly M53 development went into overdrive, first flown on a Caravelle then on a modified F1 in December 1974 : the one that lost the deal of the Century to the F-16 the next spring.
The F1-M53 was to be the low end to the ACF, but actually drove it in the grave. After what the Mirage 2000 was born and flew in 1978.

The real missed opportunity in all this was a 120% scaled-up F1 with a Tomcat engine (SNECMA TF306), called the F3. RFP in 1966, canned in spring 1967 for the F1, prototype never finished, never flown, scrapped in place.
Had the F3 survived, it could have "digested" the M53 better than the F1 - which was designed as the smallest and lightest airframe around the 9K50 which lacked thrust, being at the end of its development rope.

I love the Mirage F-1, and have speculated what could have been had Australia committed to it early and had it follow the Mirage III in production and service.

It is a firm belief of mine that Australia would have been well served by maintaining continuous aircraft production, alongside armoured vehicle and warship construction. It needn't be the best of any type, just good enough and replaced rather than life extended, maintaining industrial capacity and keeping the ADF effective and capable.

 

[Caryina2642]

I love the Mirage F-1, and have speculated what could have been had Australia committed to it early and had it follow the Mirage III in production and service.

It is a firm belief of mine that Australia would have been well served by maintaining continuous aircraft production, alongside armoured vehicle and warship construction. It needn't be the best of any type, just good enough and replaced rather than life extended, maintaining industrial capacity and keeping the ADF effective and capable.

I feel like the mirage F2 or G aircraft would be a better fit for the RAAF. If Australia joins France with development, might see the french air force with big fighters instead of small ones. Plus allow a bigger aerospace industry here in australia

 

[Volkodav]

How did the Vickers Vanguard compare in performance terms with the Lockheed L-188 Electra, Volkodav? Did it have better altitude performance?

Regards
Pioneer

Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you specifics; however, it was a generation ahead of the Electra and Viscount.

It was over a decade ago I bought the kits, as part of an Alt History I was formulating around Vickers in Australia. The gist of it was Vickers was operating CODOC for the Australian government, and as part of a strategy to modernise and expand Australian industry following WWI, Vickers was engaged to expand shipbuilding and to also establish aircraft, aero engine and armoured vehicle production in Australia.

Cockatoo Island was expanded and progressively joined to Balmain by land reclamation, incorporating multiple building docks and production facilities for armour plates, boilers and turbines, lessons having been learnt with the delays to HMAS Adelaide's construction due to the loss of critical components in transit during WWI. This expansion also included the aforementioned aviation and armoured vehicle production facilities.

 

[Archibald]

I feel like the mirage F2 or G aircraft would be a better fit for the RAAF. If Australia joins France with development, might see the french air force with big fighters instead of small ones. Plus allow a bigger aerospace industry here in australia

Which reminds me that in summer 1968 RAAF officers came to France and tested the Mirage G (single TF306E turbofan).

Unfortunately, the curse of the F-20, F-18L and Mirage 4000 says: if not bought by his home country's military, it is doomed.

Dassault churned prototypes like crazy in the 1960's (mostly because the AdA and Aéronavale RFP were often pie-in-the-sky).
So plenty of choice.
For single-engine Mirages, you can get
-an Atar-powered Mirage F1 or a trio of TF306 types
-Mirage F2 : fixed wing two-seater for strike
-Mirage F3 : same as above, but turned single-seat interceptor
-Mirage G : same as F2 except with VG wings.

 

[Volkodav]

I was having a thought about armour options for the Army in the 70s.

CVRT family for CAV instead of M-113, allowing them to be retained for the APC role exclusively. In particular, I'm imagining a Spartan with a Cadillac Gage T-50 Turret forming the mainstay of the CMF CAV regiments and squadrons.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was having a thought about armour options for the Army in the 70s.

CVRT family for CAV instead of M-113, allowing them to be retained for the APC role exclusively. In particular, I'm imagining a Spartan with a Cadillac Gage T-50 Turret forming the mainstay of the CMF CAV regiments and squadrons.

I think that depends on whether Oz uses the British/European model for what Cavalry does, or it they use the American model.

American cavalry is expected to fight is the primary difference. IIRC there's a whole Chieftain video on the differences.

 

[Caryina2642]

Which reminds me that in summer 1968 RAAF officers came to France and tested the Mirage G (single TF306E turbofan).

Unfortunately, the curse of the F-20, F-18L and Mirage 4000 says: if not bought by his home country's military, it is doomed.

Dassault churned prototypes like crazy in the 1960's (mostly because the AdA and Aéronavale RFP were often pie-in-the-sky).
So plenty of choice.
For single-engine Mirages, you can get
-an Atar-powered Mirage F1 or a trio of TF306 types
-Mirage F2 : fixed wing two-seater for strike
-Mirage F3 : same as above, but turned single-seat interceptor
-Mirage G : same as F2 except with VG wings.

Thats why if australia jumps on board eralier enough with a joint development program you will see france adopting it also

 

[Volkodav]

I think that depends on whether Oz uses the British/European model for what Cavalry does, or it they use the American model.

American cavalry is expected to fight is the primary difference. IIRC there's a whole Chieftain video on the differences.

We used a mix of the two, APC regiment had US CAV structures but without tanks, and the Rec roled CAV had hybrid UK structures.

The APC CAV, i.e. 3 and 4 CAV Regts, later the amalgamated 3/4CAV, was based on a troop with 14 M-113 and one ACV, with three four vehicle Sections and a HQ with two M-113 and one ACV.

The Rec CAV Troop was two LRV (M-113), two MRV (M-113 with a Scorpion Turret), and one APC (M-113 identical to the other two but with a section of assault Troops/ Cavalry Scouts).

In the 70s I would group most of the M-113 into the two CAV (APC) Regiments (maybe have them as integrated reg reserve units), providing sufficient life for two infantry brigades. Each with a Rec element with LRV/MRV M-113 variants. 2 CAV would get CVRTs as would the reserve CAV units, using Spartans in place of the M-113/LRV and Scorpion in place of the MRV. Each troop would have two APC-roled Spartans (as was down when the ASLAV was procured) to compensate for the smaller troop capacity.