Alternate Australian Defence Force 1970s Procurements?

[Caryina2642]

Instead of after Vietnam & Gough Whitlam election the ADF didn't get a bunch of different procurement projects cancelled on them and went ahead with the ones they had planned?
Royal Australian Navy

• HMS Hermes is acquired becoming HMAS Australia (More A-4G's & S-2Gs acquired to fill out air wing & Possibly E-1B Tracers?)
• Landing Ship Medium Mark II Project isn't cancelled (How many would get built?)
• 7-10x DDL Project isn't canceled (Replacing the Daring Class Destroyers & River Class DE's)
• 5x GP Escort Project (Australianised Type 21 with 5inch gun & Sea Sparrow)
• Last 2 Oberon Class Submarines not cancelled bring Submarines Total from 6 to 8
• HMAS Protector AOE isn't canceled (Would a 2nd ship be built to replace HMAS Supply?)
• 30x Fremantle Class PB's (16x RAN, 10x PNG & 4x RANR)
• Super Frelon instead of Sea Kings
• Westland Lynx for GP Escort & DDL

Royal Australian Air Force

• 127x Saab-37AU Viggens replacing Mirage IIIO from 1976
• 44x UH-1H Iroquois
• 12x CH-47C Chinooks
• 11x AH-1G Cobras

Australian Army

• 84x OH-58A Kiowa

How would this affect the ADF going into the future, and are there any other projects that got canceled?
Eg:

• When would and by what would the Viggens get replaced?
• How would the big helicopter order effect future procurements? Eg: would the Blackhawk & Seahawk order go ahead in the 80's?
• In this Scenario would HMAS Melbourne become a Fast Troop Transport/Commando Carrier to replace HMAS Sydney or get decommissioned and scrapped?
• How would this effect Indonesia's invasion of East Timor?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Landing Ship Medium Mark II Project isn't cancelled (How many would get built?)

Three to four. I don't see any more, with four WW2-era LSMs being replaced, and less than three would result in availability issues.

HMAS Protector AOE isn't canceled (Would a 2nd ship be built to replace HMAS Supply?)

I doubt it. Oilers tend to have long service lives and the ship only dates back to 1955. The Australians don't really have a need for extra capacity over the Tide-class, too.

When would and by what would the Viggens get replaced?

Around the mid-to-late 1990s as the MiG-29 starts proliferating in Southeast Asia. IOTL that prompted the Hornet Upgrade Program; ITTL the Viggen is just less able to compete in general, so I'd expect them to search for a replacement.

The alternative to HUG was the Typhoon and Super Hornet; both were not proceeded with due to technological immaturity. In which case, I'd expect things to boil down to either the Hornet or the Eagle for much the same reasons as the IOTL decision in the early 1980s.

That decision comes down to whether the Australians want the capability of the Eagle or the lower operational costs of the Hornet - the original objections to the Eagle, its capabilities destabilizing the region, are a moot point by the mid-90s. One advantage of the Eagle is that it would make a better F-111C replacement than the Super Hornet. I suspect an all-Eagle fleet might be tempting for the RAAF.

In this Scenario would HMAS Melbourne become a Fast Troop Transport/Commando Carrier to replace HMAS Sydney or get decommissioned and scrapped?

Decommissioned; this'll put stronger financial pressures on the Australian military, not lighter.

 

[Caryina2642]

Three to four. I don't see any more, with four WW2-era LSMs being replaced, and less than three would result in availability issues.

Yeah thats what I was thinking that, do you reckon the 8x LCH would be built for the army in this timeline?

The Australians don't really have a need for extra capacity over the Tide-class, too.

Yeah but say hmas protector is laid down in 74 and takes 6 years to build so is commised in 1980. Hmas supply was decommissioned in 1985, so it might make sense for australia to build a 2nd

I suspect an all-Eagle fleet might be tempting for the RAAF.

Thats my gut feeling too an all F 15E strike agle fleet l, even though i prefer the super hornet

Decommissioned; this'll put stronger financial pressures on the Australian military, not lighter.

Fair enough, i was being to hopefull here, maybe she stays in reserve for when Hmas Australia is in refit

 

[CV12Hornet]

Yeah but say hmas protector is laid down in 74 and takes 6 years to build so is commised in 1980. Hmas supply was decommissioned in 1985, so it might make sense for australia to build a 2nd

Success was ordered in 1979.

Yeah thats what I was thinking that, do you reckon the 8x LCH would be built for the army in this timeline?

They seem to have been a replacement for the LSMs, so probably not.

 

[Caryina2642]

Success was ordered in 1979

Yeah, but was laid down in 1980. But I'd HMAS Protector was built in this timeline line, it would make sense for australia and to be built replace hmas supply. Especially with the 2 ocean policy

They seem to have been a replacement for the LSMs, so probably not

True but weren't they only built cause the lsm mkii got cancelled. Say the lsm mkii goes to the ran l. Would the army want LCHs to go along with the lsm mkii. Kinda like what's happening today?

 

[CV12Hornet]

True but weren't they only built cause the lsm mkii got cancelled. Say the lsm mkii goes to the ran l. Would the army want LCHs to go along with the lsm mkii. Kinda like what's happening today?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, they were only built for the LSM Mark IIs so they're not likely to be built.

 

[Caryina2642]

Yeah, that's what I'm saying, they were only built for the LSM Mark IIs so they're not likely to be built.

Fair Enough
What would the effect of the big helicopter order (84x OH-58A, 44x UH-1H, 12x Ch-47C & 11x AH-1G, Plus the Sup[er Frelon & Lynx) have on the ADF?
How long would HMS Hermes stay in Australian service?
How would having both the GP Escort & DDL effect the Navy?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Fair Enough
What would the effect of the big helicopter order (84x OH-58A, 44x UH-1H, 12x Ch-47C & 11x AH-1G, Plus the Sup[er Frelon & Lynx) have on the ADF?

I'm afraid helicopters are out of my usual wheelhouse, so I can't say.

How long would HMS Hermes stay in Australian service?

1999 is around when she started descending into refit hell in Indian service, so probably not much later than that.

What they could do to replace her is an open question, there aren't a ton of good options in that timeframe.

How would having both the GP Escort & DDL effect the Navy?

No Adelaides, obviously. The ANZACs would be deferred about a decade and would probably emerge in a fairly different form. In between the DDL and the alt-ANZAC the RAN would probably look into a new air defense destroyer to replace the Perths. The issue there is the same as with Hermes: the timing's not great in terms of what's available.

 

[Caryina2642]

I'm afraid helicopters are out of my usual wheelhouse, so I can't say.

Fair enough, same here. The only thing i can think of is the Blackhawk & Seahawk buys in the 80's wont happen

1999 is around when she started descending into refit hell in Indian service, so probably not much later than that.

What they could do to replace her is an open question, there aren't a ton of good options in that timeframe.

No there's not. There's really only 2 options. 1. Build a brand new CATOBAR carrier for F/A-18 Super Hornets or 2. Build a brand new carrier based off one of the many different harrier carriers being built/have been built in Europe.
My gut says the RAN would want to stay CATOBAR if it is finically and manpower possible, but is unlikely given the time period
Though one advantage would be if the RAAF chooses the Super Hornet to replace the Viggens the RAN could join in on the buy

No Adelaides, obviously. The ANZACs would be deferred about a decade and would probably emerge in a fairly different form. In between the DDL and the alt-ANZAC the RAN would probably look into a new air defense destroyer to replace the Perths. The issue there is the same as with Hermes: the timing's not great in terms of what's available.

For the Perth replacements i would say buying the Kidd Class 2nd hand off the USN would be the way to go. Then in the 2010's you can build a DDL & Kidd Replacement Destroyer.
I would say the Anzacs would be built very late 90's probably 2000's, to replace the GP escorts and would be a different ship entirely. Probably an Australian designed ship with all the Experience for the GP Escort & DDL Program

In this timeline Australian shipbuilding would be lot better most likely. Meaning the Collins class submarines probably ain't as much as a disaster in the building phase and we would be designing all our surface fleet ships at least now

 

[CV12Hornet]

No there's not. There's really only 2 options. 1. Build a brand new CATOBAR carrier for F/A-18 Super Hornets or 2. Build a brand new carrier based off one of the many different harrier carriers being built/have been built in Europe.
My gut says the RAN would want to stay CATOBAR if it is finically and manpower possible, but is unlikely given the time period
Though one advantage would be if the RAAF chooses the Super Hornet to replace the Viggens the RAN could join in on the buy

No, I think they're going to have to convert Hermes to V/STOL ops as the Skyhawks age out. Her catapults and arrestor gear are going to be increasingly creaky and I don't like her ability to operate Hornets in any case.

Which puts the ball in the V/STOL court once her replacement becomes a priority.

For the Perth replacements i would say buying the Kidd Class 2nd hand off the USN would be the way to go. Then in the 2010's you can build a DDL & Kidd Replacement Destroyer.
I would say the Anzacs would be built very late 90's probably 2000's, to replace the GP escorts and would be a different ship entirely. Probably an Australian designed ship with all the Experience for the GP Escort & DDL Program

In this timeline Australian shipbuilding would be lot better most likely. Meaning the Collins class submarines probably ain't as much as a disaster in the building phase and we would be designing all our surface fleet ships at least now

The Australians were not enthusiastic about the Kidds after the Newport fiasco, and that's not likely to change here.

An alt-ANZAC is going to have to come later than that - late 90s is when the OTL ANZAC-class entered service OTL. In that period, Australia is going to be hip-deep in major capital replacement programs between the Collins-class, the Perth replacement, and the Hermes replacement.

 

[Caryina2642]

No, I think they're going to have to convert Hermes to V/STOL ops as the Skyhawks age out. Her catapults and arrestor gear are going to be increasingly creaky and I don't like her ability to operate Hornets in any case.

Which puts the ball in the V/STOL court once her replacement becomes a priority.

I would say the RAN would do a mid life upgrade on the A-4s like New Zealand did (Probably in conjunction with them)
They would also upgrade the S-2s & E-1s with Turbo probs and more modern avionics
This would give Australia (Hermes) an air wing modern enough into the early 2000s (Better than any Harrier Carrier Air wing available)
I'm sure Australia would be able to machine replacements for her catapults & Arrestors with US help.
This would Allow time for her replacement probably early 2000's with either a BRAND new Hornet Carrier (Not Hornets on Hermes) or new STVOL carrier

The Australians were not enthusiastic about the Kidds after the Newport fiasco, and that's not likely to change here.

An alt-ANZAC is going to have to come later than that - late 90s is when the OTL ANZAC-class entered service OTL. In that period, Australia is going to be hip-deep in major capital replacement programs between the Collins-class, the Perth replacement, and the Hermes replacement.

Yeah but would the Newport's fiasco happen here, with 4 LSM Mkii would the Kanimbla class even happen? If not i would say the RAN would jump on the Kidds for a Perth class replacement.
I would say the ANZAC class would be designed in the late 90s and built 2000's and the DDL & Kidd replacement designed late 2000s to be built 2010s

 

[CV12Hornet]

I would say the RAN would do a mid life upgrade on the A-4s like New Zealand did (Probably in conjunction with them)
They would also upgrade the S-2s & E-1s with Turbo probs and more modern avionics
This would give Australia (Hermes) an air wing modern enough into the early 2000s (Better than any Harrier Carrier Air wing available)
I'm sure Australia would be able to machine replacements for her catapults & Arrestors with US help.
This would Allow time for her replacement probably early 2000's with either a BRAND new Hornet Carrier (Not Hornets on Hermes) or new STVOL carrier

You are aware the catapults and arresters are British, right? Also, for a lot of roles I consider the Sea Harrier specifically to be better than the Skyhawk.

Also, Australia is not going to have the money for a brand new CATOBAR carrier. No way, no how.

Yeah but would the Newport's fiasco happen here, with 4 LSM Mkii would the Kanimbla class even happen? If not i would say the RAN would jump on the Kidds for a Perth class replacement.
I would say the ANZAC class would be designed in the late 90s and built 2000's and the DDL & Kidd replacement designed late 2000s to be built 2010s

Yes, because they were a replacement for a completely different capability than the LSMs.

 

[Caryina2642]

You are aware the catapults and arresters are British, right? Also, for a lot of roles I consider the Sea Harrier specifically to be better than the Skyhawk.

Also, Australia is not going to have the money for a brand new CATOBAR carrier. No way, no how.

Yeah i know they are british, I was saying with US or UK help australia should be able to make spares for the catapult.
I wouldn't say no to a brand new carobar carrier isn't possible where australia has designed ans built, the gp escort, ddl, hmas protector and lsm mkii.
In 1964 thr ran said it would take 12 years for australia to build a 55,000ton carrier I think with all this experience, australia could do it. It would be a nation building project

Also would australia in this scenario buy used Newport class and modified them. I would think australia would design and build new amphibious ships instead

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

No, I think they're going to have to convert Hermes to V/STOL ops as the Skyhawks age out. Her catapults and arrestor gear are going to be increasingly creaky and I don't like her ability to operate Hornets in any case.

I'm sure Australia would be able to machine replacements for her catapults & Arrestors with US help.

You are aware the catapults and arresters are British, right? Also, for a lot of roles I consider the Sea Harrier specifically to be better than the Skyhawk.

Yeah I know they are British, I was saying with US or UK help Australia should be able to make spares for the catapult.

It could be done because the steam catapults on the French Clemenceau and Foch were British. Both ships were in service with the MN to the late 1990s and Clemenceau remained in service with the Brazilian Navy as the São Paulo until 2017.

Furthermore, the Brazilian Minas Gerais remained in service until 2001 but IIRC she had an American steam catapult. Though it looks like one of the reasons they were able to do that was by using the Argentine Veinticinco de Mayo (which AFAIK had an American steam catapult too) as a source of spare parts.

If the French can keep British built steam catapults working to the late 1990s and the Brazilians can do the same to 2017, so can the Australians.

The RAN may be able to cannibalize the British steam catapult on Melbourne for spares, which is something the Brazilian Navy and MN couldn't do. According to her Wikipedia entry INS Vikrant didn't have her British steam catapult removed until her 1987-89 refit and the RAN may be able to purchase that and cannibalize it for spares too.

 

[Volkodav]

Sorry, can't help myself, F-4K for Hermes and maybe acquire Victorious as well.

According to old plans I read years ago, 23 escorts and three carriers was policy from the mid to late 60s.

There were also, believe it or not, plans for an SSN acquisition. The Oberons were seen as an interim capability to build submarine experience before buying SSNs from the UK.

 

[GTX]

Royal Australian Air Force

• 127x Saab-37AU Viggens replacing Mirage IIIO from 1976

Addressing just part of this whatif:

The replacement for the Mirage IIIs ended up entering service in the mid 1980s in the real world. The only one that I believe was seriously considered earlier (for a mid 1970s service entry) was a derivative of the Mirage F.1 and apparently it was looked upon favourably at the time mainly due to the local production element being proposed - I am trying to get a copy of the file associated with this from our National Archives ("Proposed collaboration by Commonwealth in development and production of F1-M53 Mirage Aircraft"). That was in 1972 I believe but the change of Govt in late 1972 put paid to it. (As an aside, I did a fictional story on it here: The French Connection).

While pretty much every other Western platform was considered at some point (Mirage F1 & 2000, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Panavia Tornado, Sepecat Jaguar, Saab Viggen), none of these (other than the afore mentioned F.1) would really have made it into service in 1976 based upon real world developments. In fact, once the Whitlam Govt deferred the Mirage III replacement until 1980s nothing else would have made it. Even if the Fraser Govt in 1975 had reversed the plans and re-started procurement of a replacement and then rapidly did it, the earliest one would conceivable have seen a new fighter would have been around 1980.

And in such a scenario (the "Fraser rush job"), aiming for a ~1980 service entry, one would practically be looking at the following options:

• Mirage F.1 - maybe the M53 version mentioned
• F-14 - some commonality with F-111s there
• F-15 - probably the A/B model realistically though if everything worked out (unlikely), maybe a C/D version
• F-16 - again, A/B models
• Viggen - with luck the JA-37 variant

My money here would be on one of the following:

• F.1 - if the afore mentioned offer was still on the table (unlikely now)
• F-16 - probably the most realistic given budgets etc
• F-15 if there was deemed to be an urgent need and money was not a restriction.

Service entry of one these in ~1980 would have conceivably have seen a mid-life upgrade around 1995 with this being roughly akin to the RW HUG program but about 5yrs earlier. Eventual replacement would be looked at around 2005 - 2010 which would result in either newer versions of the same (say F-16 Blk 50/52 or similar) or maybe Super Hornets (as per RW, though for the primary fighter not the strike platform, so maybe Es and Fs), Eurofighter Typhoons, Dassault Rafales or maybe even Saab Gripens though as much as I like the latter, I don't see it being selected by the RAAF.

One other option might be the F-15E but this would be more of a F-111 replacement.

 

[Rule of cool]

Australia buying the Viggen would be unlikely for 2 reasons..

Sweden embargoes the ammunition for it's Carl Gustav RCLs due to Australian' involvement in the Vietnam War, showing Sweden to be an unreliable suppler.

The US blocked exports of the Viggen due to it's US derived engine.

 

[Rule of cool]

Landing Ship Medium Mark II Project isn't cancelled (How many would get built?)

There was a mismatch between Army and RAN conception of amphibious ships. The RAN wanted (to the extent hey were interested in amphibious ships at all) ships that could make sea journeys and land troops and gear on distant objects, perhaps even under reasonable fire. The Army wanted amphibious craft to provide logistic support to established forces so it could operate in more areas, such as very underdeveloped northern Australia and PNG. The Army LSMs did this in Vietnam, picking up tanks from ports and landing them on the beach at Vung Tau.

When the LSM MkII got cancelled, at least in part due to disagreements between the Army and Navy, the Army bought the 8 LCHs to meet their needs.

 

[Rule of cool]

• 7-10x DDL Project isn't canceled (Replacing the Daring Class Destroyers & River Class DE's)
• 5x GP Escort Project (Australianised Type 21 with 5inch gun & Sea Sparrow)

The Type 21 was part of the evolution of the RAN destroyer from basically a corvette with a 5" gun through a frigate and finally into a capable, multi-role, guided missile destroyer. The RN dropped uot of joint discussions with the RAN when Australia specified US weapons like the 5" gun.

By 1972 only 3 RAN DDLs were planned, although I suspect more would have been built as the programme progressed so that 6 or so were built like the FFGs.

Post Vietnam wasn't a time for big Defence spending, the best way to boost the ADF is to make better use of the Vietnam era.

 

[Rule of cool]

• HMS Hermes is acquired becoming HMAS Australia (More A-4G's & S-2Gs acquired to fill out air wing & Possibly E-1B Tracers?)
• 
  
• Last 2 Oberon Class Submarines not cancelled bring Submarines Total from 6 to 8

Those last 2 Oberons were cancelled to fund the purchase of a 2nd batch of A4s, to elevate the Melbourne from an ASW carrier into a multi-role carrier.

Getting Hermes, sufficient A4s for her and all 8 subs is wish fulfillment heaven, it would make the RAN dominant for decades. However, the RAN couldn't man Hermes in the Vietnam era so wouldn't have a hope in the 70s.

Possibly a good option would be for a major refit on the Melbourne in the 70s. Things like a BS4A catapult, greater angle on the landing deck and major steel-work like the RN did for the Eagle in 1961-64. hat would give her another 15 years of productive life.

 

[GTX]

The US blocked exports of the Viggen due to it's US derived engine.

That's true though Australia might have been able to get an exception. Alternatively, one could have perhaps re-engined as per one of the options shown here:https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saab-viggen-concepts-and-unbuilt-versions.30430/ For instance, the 37XE-3 variant with twin RB 193 engines and increased internal fuel might have been of interest. That said, I still see the options as being either a Mirage F1 in the mid 1972 or a F-15 or F-16 in 1980.

 

[Caryina2642]

Sorry, can't help myself, F-4K for Hermes and maybe acquire Victorious as well.

According to old plans I read years ago, 23 escorts and three carriers was policy from the mid to late 60s.

There were also, believe it or not, plans for an SSN acquisition. The Oberons were seen as an interim capability to build submarine experience before buying SSNs from the UK.

Yeah i have seen that as well but i think 1 carrier, 20 escorts & 8 oberon class subs would be a little more realistic

Australia buying the Viggen would be unlikely for 2 reasons..

Sweden embargoes the ammunition for it's Carl Gustav RCLs due to Australian' involvement in the Vietnam War, showing Sweden to be an unreliable suppler.

The US blocked exports of the Viggen due to it's US derived engine.

Well reading between the lines saab-37au forum https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ustralian-ja-37-derivative-1970-−-1976.42066/
The viggen seem to be the front runner and would have been chosen if Gough hadnt pushed the replacement fighter back
Plus i really like a Viggen carrying AIM-54 Pheniox missiles

The Type 21 was part of the evolution of the RAN destroyer from basically a corvette with a 5" gun through a frigate and finally into a capable, multi-role, guided missile destroyer. The RN dropped uot of joint discussions with the RAN when Australia specified US weapons like the 5" gun.

By 1972 only 3 RAN DDLs were planned, although I suspect more would have been built as the programme progressed so that 6 or so were built like the FFGs.

Post Vietnam wasn't a time for big Defence spending, the best way to boost the ADF is to make better use of the Vietnam era.

Yeah i know that but in the 1964 Carrier replacement document it states the RAN needs 5 more escort this is where i get the 5x GP Escorts/Type 21's
The plan was only 3 DDL but it wouldn't surprise me if the 6 river class frigates would have got replaced by DDL in the late 80's early 90s as well.

Those last 2 Oberons were cancelled to fund the purchase of a 2nd batch of A4s, to elevate the Melbourne from an ASW carrier into a multi-role carrier.

Getting Hermes, sufficient A4s for her and all 8 subs is wish fulfillment heaven, it would make the RAN dominant for decades. However, the RAN couldn't man Hermes in the Vietnam era so wouldn't have a hope in the 70s.

Possibly a good option would be for a major refit on the Melbourne in the 70s. Things like a BS4A catapult, greater angle on the landing deck and major steel-work like the RN did for the Eagle in 1961-64. hat would give her another 15 years of productive life.

The RAN could have easily maned Hermes in the Anti-Submarine carrier role. In this role her crew would be only slightly bigger than Melbourne and a hell of a lot smaller than her crew as fleet carrier.
The hole premise is hat if the ADF got everything the planned for in the Late 60's and 70s

 

[Caryina2642]

In this scenario would the RAN be better off with sticking with the Fremantle class PB's or a Corvette like the Vickers Vedette Type 633 ?
https://www.shipbucket.com/drawings/1455Would the army buy scorpion light tanks for the Cavalry Regiments? (It did trail the M551 & put the scorpion turret on the M113)

 

[Volkodav]

An interesting possibility could have been a new fighter every decade, leading to basically a continuous build, selling the ten to fifteen year old airframes on the global market. Imagine what that could do for NZ.

Mirage III EO
Mirage F1
Mirage 2000

What about bombers/strike?

Does it still go Canberra, interim F-4E, F-111?

A thought crosses my mind is could the F-111 be skipped with the RAAF adopting a strike version of their current fighter going forward and acquiring a tanker force earlier? Maybe a cheaper strike type, Corsair II, Super Etendard, or Jaguar, even Skyhawk, instead of the fighter?

 

[Volkodav]

The DDL started as a much simpler vessel intended to increase RAN combatant numbers; it was a supplement to the Darings and Rivers, not a replacement. I suppose the DDL was intended as a replacement for the River and Bay class frigates as well as the Q class Type 15 conversions.

While the DDL evolved into a replacement for the Darings and Rivers, this was after the combatant fleet had been reduced in size by sleight of hand post-Vietnam, and perhaps more critically Indonesia's coup that realigned them closer to the West. Before this DDL, even in its more capable form, was intended as an addition to the fleet.

Many references and decisions reinforce that twenty or more destroyers and frigates were required, even when two carriers formed the core of the fleet. The Bay class frigates and some of the Rivers were upgraded post-war, even if they were placed in reserve for financial reasons. Two Tribal Class destroyers were upgraded and retained for further service alongside the Battles and Darings. A fourth Daring was ordered, then cancelled, and the original plan was for twelve Type 12 (River Class) frigates to replace the entire frigate fleet, with four Q Class destroyers receiving full Type 15 ASW conversions as an interim.

I reiterate, this was when it was still intended to upgrade Sydney and maintain a two-carrier force.

After the decision to convert Melbourne to an ASW Helo carrier, there were efforts to increase combatant numbers quickly by acquiring USN war-built destroyers, as many other nations had done. Plans to convert the Cruiser Hobart to a CG, plans to convert the Daring and even the Battles to DDGs, instead of, or maybe in addition to, the new build DDGs. This is also when plans to build or buy a new carrier were proposed, Melbourne was retained in her CTOL configuration with new aircraft, submarines were obtained, and the much larger, simpler DDL was kicked off, and a fourth Perth Class DDG proposed.

A lot was spent on Australia's involvement in Vietnam from the mid-1960s; this was seen as a down payment on US support in the event of a threat to Australia. If Australia reduced its commitment to the land war to a minimum, funding and manpower could have been redirected to capability acquisition, reducing the need to rely on the US, which wasn't guaranteed after the 1969 Guam Doctrine in any case.

The elephant in the room is Indonesia. Suharto's rise in the late 1960s allowed Australia to reduce defence spending massively, but without that, i.e. had Indonesia remained non-aligned and belligerent, threatening neighbouring nations and with continued access to Soviet equipment, which on paper, was superior to Australia's Western equipment, things could have been very different.

Indonesia receiving a newer generation Soviet equipment, submarines, destroyers, fighters, bombers etc. and the DDL may have grown even more capable, and evolved Type 21 acquired, a new carrier (or carriers) may have been on the cards as the only real solution to the submarine and surface threat. Maybe an SSN acquisition and only four Oberons.

 

[Rule of cool]

Yeah i know that but in the 1964 Carrier replacement document it states the RAN needs 5 more escort this is where i get the 5x GP Escorts/Type 21's
The plan was only 3 DDL but it wouldn't surprise me if the 6 river class frigates would have got replaced by DDL in the late 80's early 90s as well.

I put together this list of RAN requirements and government decisions 1959-70, bear in mind that the 4 River DEs were already being built/ordered by 1959.

• 1959 Early RAN announces intention to acquire SAMs ‘soon’. Unknown - 50% of RAN would need SAMs.
• 1959 December RAN to disband fixed wing FAA, orders 27 Wessex ASW helicopters.
• 1960 RAN evaluating County and Adams class DDGs.
• 1961 February Cabinet approves order of 2 Adams class DDGs.
• 1961 plans to refit Daring class with Tartar
• 1963 Naval Board recommends purchase of 4 Oberon submarines to replace the 3 RN subs at Sydney for ASW training. (Ultimate plans for another 4 to create an offensive capability)
• 1963 3rd DDG ordered
• 1963 the 1959 decision to disband fixed wing FAA reversed.
• 1964 February HMAS Voyager sunk, HMS Duchess transferred on 4-year loan
• 1964 Plans to refit Daring class with Ikara and Sea Cat
• 1964 November COSC recommends 4th DDG as a balance for Daring’s switch from Tartar AAW refit to Ikara/Sea Cat ASW refit
  • Cabinet rejects recommendation, 2 River class DEs ordered.
• 1964 Studies into CVA01 and ex USN Essex class with F4s rejected in favour of refit of Melbourne. 14 S2E Trackers ordered.
• 1965 8 A4E + 2 TA4G ordered (Melbourne to carry 4 as ASW carrier)
• 1965 November 20 Attack class Patrol boats ordered
• 1966 RAN tries for 4th DDG, rejected. (no details on this)
• 1966 DDL project begun, 1,000t ship 1 x 5” gun and light helicopter to supplement Darings and patrol boats, up to 10 planned
• 1967 DDL discussion with RN, RN withdraws and builds Type 21 when RAN insists on US weapons.
• 1968 DDL 2,100t ships, 2 x 5” guns and light helicopter.
  • Becomes clear DDL will replace Darings and Rivers, not work alongside them.
• 1969 8 A4G + 2 TA4G ordered, 2nd batch of subs reduced from 4 to 2.
• 1969 Daring Ikara/Sea Cat ASW refits cancelled due to costs, refits to be with gun armament only.
• 1969 DDL specified to be more capable and flexible than originally conceived
• 1970 DDL 4.200t ship, 1 x 5” gun, 1 Tartar launcher and 2 x helicopters, plans for 3.

By the time Whitlam was elected the RAN escort requirement was pretty much settled to be about 12 quite capable, modern ships after much to-ing and fro-ing during the 60s.

 

[Caryina2642]

An interesting possibility could have been a new fighter every decade, leading to basically a continuous build, selling the ten to fifteen year old airframes on the global market. Imagine what that could do for NZ.

Mirage III EO
Mirage F1
Mirage 2000

What about bombers/strike?

Does it still go Canberra, interim F-4E, F-111?

A thought crosses my mind is could the F-111 be skipped with the RAAF adopting a strike version of their current fighter going forward and acquiring a tanker force earlier? Maybe a cheaper strike type, Corsair II, Super Etendard, or Jaguar, even Skyhawk, instead of the fighter?

Apparently the NZ almost brought new built Australian MIrage IIIO before settling on the A-4
For strike i would stay the RAAF would stay with the f-111c as there is nothing available with its capability. The only thing i could think of is the RAAF would either buy another 12 F-111Cs for another squadron (Replacing 2nd squadron canberras) or they keep the F-4s for SEAD & escorting the f-111 i can see either happening

The DDL started as a much simpler vessel intended to increase RAN combatant numbers; it was a supplement to the Darings and Rivers, not a replacement. I suppose the DDL was intended as a replacement for the River and Bay class frigates as well as the Q class Type 15 conversions.

While the DDL evolved into a replacement for the Darings and Rivers, this was after the combatant fleet had been reduced in size by sleight of hand post-Vietnam, and perhaps more critically Indonesia's coup that realigned them closer to the West. Before this DDL, even in its more capable form, was intended as an addition to the fleet.

Many references and decisions reinforce that twenty or more destroyers and frigates were required, even when two carriers formed the core of the fleet. The Bay class frigates and some of the Rivers were upgraded post-war, even if they were placed in reserve for financial reasons. Two Tribal Class destroyers were upgraded and retained for further service alongside the Battles and Darings. A fourth Daring was ordered, then cancelled, and the original plan was for twelve Type 12 (River Class) frigates to replace the entire frigate fleet, with four Q Class destroyers receiving full Type 15 ASW conversions as an interim.

I reiterate, this was when it was still intended to upgrade Sydney and maintain a two-carrier force.

After the decision to convert Melbourne to an ASW Helo carrier, there were efforts to increase combatant numbers quickly by acquiring USN war-built destroyers, as many other nations had done. Plans to convert the Cruiser Hobart to a CG, plans to convert the Daring and even the Battles to DDGs, instead of, or maybe in addition to, the new build DDGs. This is also when plans to build or buy a new carrier were proposed, Melbourne was retained in her CTOL configuration with new aircraft, submarines were obtained, and the much larger, simpler DDL was kicked off, and a fourth Perth Class DDG proposed.

A lot was spent on Australia's involvement in Vietnam from the mid-1960s; this was seen as a down payment on US support in the event of a threat to Australia. If Australia reduced its commitment to the land war to a minimum, funding and manpower could have been redirected to capability acquisition, reducing the need to rely on the US, which wasn't guaranteed after the 1969 Guam Doctrine in any case.

The elephant in the room is Indonesia. Suharto's rise in the late 1960s allowed Australia to reduce defence spending massively, but without that, i.e. had Indonesia remained non-aligned and belligerent, threatening neighbouring nations and with continued access to Soviet equipment, which on paper, was superior to Australia's Western equipment, things could have been very different.

Indonesia receiving a newer generation Soviet equipment, submarines, destroyers, fighters, bombers etc. and the DDL may have grown even more capable, and evolved Type 21 acquired, a new carrier (or carriers) may have been on the cards as the only real solution to the submarine and surface threat. Maybe an SSN acquisition and only four Oberons.

Yeah Indonesia still needs to be seen as a threat for all this to happen realistically, Which i don't think is that hard.

I put together this list of RAN requirements and government decisions 1959-70, bear in mind that the 4 River DEs were already being built/ordered by 1959.

• 1959 Early RAN announces intention to acquire SAMs ‘soon’. Unknown - 50% of RAN would need SAMs.
• 1959 December RAN to disband fixed wing FAA, orders 27 Wessex ASW helicopters.
• 1960 RAN evaluating County and Adams class DDGs.
• 1961 February Cabinet approves order of 2 Adams class DDGs.
• 1961 plans to refit Daring class with Tartar
• 1963 Naval Board recommends purchase of 4 Oberon submarines to replace the 3 RN subs at Sydney for ASW training. (Ultimate plans for another 4 to create an offensive capability)
• 1963 3rd DDG ordered
• 1963 the 1959 decision to disband fixed wing FAA reversed.
• 1964 February HMAS Voyager sunk, HMS Duchess transferred on 4-year loan
• 1964 Plans to refit Daring class with Ikara and Sea Cat
• 1964 November COSC recommends 4th DDG as a balance for Daring’s switch from Tartar AAW refit to Ikara/Sea Cat ASW refit
  • Cabinet rejects recommendation, 2 River class DEs ordered.
• 1964 Studies into CVA01 and ex USN Essex class with F4s rejected in favour of refit of Melbourne. 14 S2E Trackers ordered.
• 1965 8 A4E + 2 TA4G ordered (Melbourne to carry 4 as ASW carrier)
• 1965 November 20 Attack class Patrol boats ordered
• 1966 RAN tries for 4th DDG, rejected. (no details on this)
• 1966 DDL project begun, 1,000t ship 1 x 5” gun and light helicopter to supplement Darings and patrol boats, up to 10 planned
• 1967 DDL discussion with RN, RN withdraws and builds Type 21 when RAN insists on US weapons.
• 1968 DDL 2,100t ships, 2 x 5” guns and light helicopter.
  • Becomes clear DDL will replace Darings and Rivers, not work alongside them.
• 1969 8 A4G + 2 TA4G ordered, 2nd batch of subs reduced from 4 to 2.
• 1969 Daring Ikara/Sea Cat ASW refits cancelled due to costs, refits to be with gun armament only.
• 1969 DDL specified to be more capable and flexible than originally conceived
• 1970 DDL 4.200t ship, 1 x 5” gun, 1 Tartar launcher and 2 x helicopters, plans for 3.

By the time Whitlam was elected the RAN escort requirement was pretty much settled to be about 12 quite capable, modern ships after much to-ing and fro-ing during the 60s.

Doing the math's you can replace the 3x Darings and 6x Rivers with 10x DDL's and 2x GP Escort/Type 21
3 Darings + 6 Rivers = 960 + 1500 = 2460
10x DDL's + 2x GP Escorts = 2100 + 358 = 2458
I think it would be able to crew more but i cant find how many of the crew would be FAA personal with the helicopters
these figures are just are rough estimate
So the RAN could easily have more than 12 escorts in this time period

 

[Rule of cool]

keep the F-4s

I'm a bit surprised more hasn't been made of this option given how easy it would be and how much of a boost to capability it would provide.

 

[Caryina2642]

I'm a bit surprised more hasn't been made of this option given how easy it would be and how much of a boost to capability it would provide.

Same here, though to be honest i kind of forgot about them at the start. They would allow a big boost to capability allowing the RAAF to have 4-5 Fighter Squadrons (Depending if they replace the Mirage III Squadron that got decommissioned) & 2x Bomber Squadrons
Though it would push back any mirage IIIO replacement to the 80's leading to the Hornets as OTL.

 

[Pioneer]

Addressing just part of this whatif:

The replacement for the Mirage IIIs ended up entering service in the mid 1980s in the real world. The only one that I believe was seriously considered earlier (for a mid 1970s service entry) was a derivative of the Mirage F.1 and apparently it was looked upon favourably at the time mainly due to the local production element being proposed - I am trying to get a copy of the file associated with this from our National Archives ("Proposed collaboration by Commonwealth in development and production of F1-M53 Mirage Aircraft"). That was in 1972 I believe but the change of Govt in late 1972 put paid to it. (As an aside, I did a fictional story on it here: The French Connection).

While pretty much every other Western platform was considered at some point (Mirage F1 & 2000, F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Panavia Tornado, Sepecat Jaguar, Saab Viggen), none of these (other than the afore mentioned F.1) would really have made it into service in 1976 based upon real world developments. In fact, once the Whitlam Govt deferred the Mirage III replacement until 1980s nothing else would have made it. Even if the Fraser Govt in 1975 had reversed the plans and re-started procurement of a replacement and then rapidly did it, the earliest one would conceivable have seen a new fighter would have been around 1980.

And in such a scenario (the "Fraser rush job"), aiming for a ~1980 service entry, one would practically be looking at the following options:

• Mirage F.1 - maybe the M53 version mentioned
• F-14 - some commonality with F-111s there
• F-15 - probably the A/B model realistically though if everything worked out (unlikely), maybe a C/D version
• F-16 - again, A/B models
• Viggen - with luck the JA-37 variant

My money here would be on one of the following:

• F.1 - if the afore mentioned offer was still on the table (unlikely now)
• F-16 - probably the most realistic given budgets etc
• F-15 if there was deemed to be an urgent need and money was not a restriction.

Service entry of one these in ~1980 would have conceivably have seen a mid-life upgrade around 1995 with this being roughly akin to the RW HUG program but about 5yrs earlier. Eventual replacement would be looked at around 2005 - 2010 which would result in either newer versions of the same (say F-16 Blk 50/52 or similar) or maybe Super Hornets (as per RW, though for the primary fighter not the strike platform, so maybe Es and Fs), Eurofighter Typhoons, Dassault Rafales or maybe even Saab Gripens though as much as I like the latter, I don't see it being selected by the RAAF.

One other option might be the F-15E but this would be more of a F-111 replacement.

Yeah, I've warmed to the sensible notion of the Dassault F1-M53, GTX. It's cost, performance and capabilities were exceptional for it's time, sometimes being referred to as a cheaper F-4 Phantom II.
To emphases the legacy Mirage F1EQ performance and capabilities, it was the most feared fighter of the Iranian Air Force's F-4 and F-14's during the Iran-Iraq War, which is saying something.

GTX, please consider keeping me informed in relation to your endeavour to get a copy of the file associated with this from our National Archives ("Proposed collaboration by Commonwealth in development and production of F1-M53 Mirage Aircraft").

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Though it would push back any mirage IIIO replacement to the 80's leading to the Hornets as OTL.

This is why the RAAF didn't want to keep them, they wanted an early Mirage III replacement.

Buying the F4s would take pressure of the ADF budget to spend elsewhere, such as the RAN.

 

[Rule of cool]

What about SP artillery?

In about 1983 the 5.5" guns were replaced by the M198 towed 155mm howitzer, however I think that's an opportunity to acquire an SP artillery capability. My preference would be for a 155mm turret on Leopard 1 hulls, as this would avoid introducing another chassis to support, especially given the very small numbers (24-36?). This would make 1st Brigade (1st AR, 2nd Cav, 5/7 Mech) fully mobile rather than relying on towed (more likely helicoptered) artillery.

 

[Caryina2642]

This is why the RAAF didn't want to keep them, they wanted an early Mirage III replacement.

Buying the F4s would take pressure of the ADF budget to spend elsewhere, such as the RAN.

Its probably the way to go to allow the ran to get what it wants

What about SP artillery?

In about 1983 the 5.5" guns were replaced by the M198 towed 155mm howitzer, however I think that's an opportunity to acquire an SP artillery capability. My preference would be for a 155mm turret on Leopard 1 hulls, as this would avoid introducing another chassis to support, especially given the very small numbers (24-36?). This would make 1st Brigade (1st AR, 2nd Cav, 5/7 Mech) fully mobile rather than relying on towed (more likely helicoptered) artillery.

I really like this idea if the army gets this spg on the leopard 1 chassis would it also go ahead with project waler to give the army ifv's instead of apcs

 

[Rule of cool]

go ahead with project waler to give the army ifv's instead of apcs

The cancellation of Project Waler makes sense more or less; the Army getting new AFVs with Operational/Strategic mobility, likely meaning wheeled AFVs, instead of Tactical mobility of tracked vehicles. The problem is that the M113 needed at least partial replacement in the 80s and the Army didn't get its first trial batch of LAVs until ~1990 and the first production batch until ~1996, a decade after Waler was cancelled.

It's outside your scope, but I do have a scenario where the Army incorporates wheeled AFVs into its OOB which may give the Army some flexibility and not back it into an M113 shaped corner by the 80s.

 

[Caryina2642]

• The cancellation of Project Waler makes sense more or less; the Army getting new AFVs with Operational/Strategic mobility, likely meaning wheeled AFVs, instead of Tactical mobility of tracked vehicles. The problem is that the M113 needed at least partial replacement in the 80s and the Army didn't get its first trial batch of LAVs until ~1990 and the first production batch until ~1996, a decade after Waler was cancelled.

It's outside your scope, but I do have a scenario where the Army incorporates wheeled AFVs into its OOB which may give the Army some flexibility and not back it into an M113 shaped corner by the 80s.

I was thinking with project waler you have a tracked vehicles and a wheeled vehicles. Eg AIFV and earlier ASLAV. The AIFV for the mechanisation of 3rd division (1st brigade and 4th brigade) and the ASLAV replaced the m113 in the cavalry and reserve armour regiments of 1st and 2nd division.
I was also thinking the army should have more integrated reserve units to expanded it a bit more eg
1st division
3rd brigade (reg), Townsville
6th brigade (reg), Darwin (instead of Brisbane
7th brigade (integrated)
11th brigade (res)

 

[Rule of cool]

I think the way to get wheeled vehicles on the menu in the 70s is to actually stand up the proposed Recce regiment proposed for 1st Division's 1960 re-activation but not actually stood up. There were plenty of Ferret Scout Cars and enough Saladin Armoured Cars and Saracen APC to stand up a 2-squadron Regiment in 1960.

I think active units participating in exercises etc from 1961 onwards would give the RAAC a more flexible and balanced capability set and would make wheeled AFVs harder to remove from the OOB.

 

[Dilandu]

Looks like you oriented on my "Sukarno regime survived" tread for naval part?)

The RAN may be able to cannibalize the British steam catapult on Melbourne for spares

They aren't of the same type as on Hermes, AFAIK.

 

[Caryina2642]

I think the way to get wheeled vehicles on the menu in the 70s is to actually stand up the proposed Recce regiment proposed for 1st Division's 1960 re-activation but not actually stood up. There were plenty of Ferret Scout Cars and enough Saladin Armoured Cars and Saracen APC to stand up a 2-squadron Regiment in 1960.

I think active units participating in exercises etc from 1961 onwards would give the RAAC a more flexible and balanced capability set and would make wheeled AFVs harder to remove from the OOB.

Thats definitely the easiest way to do it. I was more thinking at turning project waler into the land 400 of the 80s sort of thing.with a
Wheeled AFVs replacing 1st n 2nd division m113
Tracked AFV replacing 3rd divisions m113 (like the original Army plan was)
SPGs on leopard chassis
Maybe more leopard 1s for a second armoured regiment for 3rd division

Looks like you oriented on my "Sukarno regime survived" tread for naval part?)



They aren't of the same type as on Hermes, AFAIK.

Definitely took some inspiration from it. I was more going along the lines of what if the adf got all its planned projects from the late 60s and 70s

 

[Pioneer]

The Army defiantly neglected and as such needs a basic SPAAG system, even if it's as simple as the French TA-20 turret (2x20mm cannon).
The effectiveness of such a SPAAG against ground targets in a secondary role can't be underestimated either.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Caryina2642]

The Army defiantly neglected and as such needs a basic SPAAG system, even if it's as simple as the French TA-20 turret (2x20mm cannon).
The effectiveness of such a SPAAG against ground targets in a secondary role can't be underestimated either.

Regards
Pioneer

If the army was going to get a SPAAG wouldn't make logistical sense for the Gepard seeing as though the army already uses the Leopard 1