Australian Invincible

[GTX]

Not if they were diverted first...

 

[starviking]

I also wonder if the Shah of Iran before the 1979 revolution would buy the original Invincible design (if I remember he too wanted 3-4 such ships) or this modified proposal?

There are certainly such claims, but it's not clear how serious the Shah's enthusiasm was, and what exactly he wanted. In a lot of respects, he seems to have treated defence exhibitions the same way a child treats a sweet shop.

I also never understood the Shah's reasoning for wanting such a vessel. Why would he need one, and how would he use it? And why so many?

Maybe to take the Iraqis per surprise over the Al-fao peninsula ? attacking them from the sea ?

That doesn't seem like it would require large helicopter carriers.

Most of the Shah era procurements can be seen more through the lens of Iran as a US ally in a global conflict with the Soviets than the Iran-Iraq conflict (though that was an issue). I haven't seen a specific mission for the carriers, but my guess would be that they anticipated providing ASW hunting groups in the Gulf of Oman or North Arabian Sea to protect oil tanker routes from Iran to the West and Far East.

IIRC the Shah wanted Iran to be a regional power, and the carriers would enable Iran to be a player in the Indian Ocean.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Yes, along with the fact that he wanted to revitalise the morbid SEATO alliance. For some more context, as the 1970s drew on 'Detente' was showing itself to be one of the great lies of history, the Soviet Union and it's allies were increasingly on the rampage, Great Britain was still firmly in the hands of the 'managed declinists', and the United States seemed doomed to terminal decline (not helped by throwing various allies under the bus starting with Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Tibetan government in exile), even more so after Carter became president.

In a bitter irony, SEATO's fate was sealed by the fall of the Shah, but Carter's betrayal did at least ensure his own demise, and hence a new dawn for the USA. Carter and the Democratic party were actually quite lucky that the full details of his treachery & incompetence didn't become public knowledge until the 21st Century (only a few years ago in fact). Otherwise the Democrats would have very likely spent the remainder of the 1980s (at the very least!) in the political wilderness.

 

[Tzoli]

So the Shah was asking help from USA but the then actual government declined to provide any aid?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Worse than that. He actively assisted Khomeini in his takeover. See here for some of the details: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36431160

The revelations helped explain a great deal about why the State Department and the CIA had been caught so badly off guard by the Revolution and the subsequent Hostage Crisis.

It appears that Carter was under the rather severe delusion that the Mullahs would, alongside the Communists and the rest of the secular opposition, create a moderate Islamic based democracy which in turn would become a neutral buffer state between the United States and the Soviet Union, helping to prop up the even then rapidly crumbling policy of Detente. Needless to say, Carter and his close advisers had never bothered to learn anything about Khomeini's Velayat-e faqih doctrine, even though he had written a detailed book on it. Of course, once the Shah was overthrown and their grip on power was secure, the Clerics immediately turned on their erstwhile allies in the Provisional Government/opposition movement.

In another irony, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 which pretty much ended any pretense about Detente being real was, among other things, intended to help clear the decks for a potential invasion of Iran to support Soviet proxies there.

 

[Volkodav]

It is interesting also to speculate what might have happened if the Shah's ships had been built and then not taken up or more likely, had been diverted from post revolutionary Iran.

I can see where you are going with this, three brand new ships in the water or under construction around the time of Australia's carrier competition and the Falklands, possibly outfitted with a mix of UK and US systems and to a higher standard than the RNs ships. I must confess I was thinking the same thing.

Potentially the UK could have kept some (instead of building Ocean) and sold the rest, or kept all and flogged off the Invincibles. Imagine one to Australia, one or two to India.

 

[BlackBat242]

Yes, along with the fact that he wanted to revitalise the morbid SEATO alliance. For some more context, as the 1970s drew on 'Detente' was showing itself to be one of the great lies of history, the Soviet Union and it's allies were increasingly on the rampage, Great Britain was still firmly in the hands of the 'managed declinists', and the United States seemed doomed to terminal decline (not helped by throwing various allies under the bus starting with Vietnam, Taiwan, and the Tibetan government in exile), even more so after Carter became president.

In a bitter irony, SEATO's fate was sealed by the fall of the Shah, but Carter's betrayal did at least ensure his own demise, and hence a new dawn for the USA. Carter and the Democratic party were actually quite lucky that the full details of his treachery & incompetence didn't become public knowledge until the 21st Century (only a few years ago in fact). Otherwise the Democrats would have very likely spent the remainder of the 1980s (at the very least!) in the political wilderness.

METO, not SEATO.

The Middle East Treaty Organization (METO), also known as the Baghdad Pact and subsequently known as the Central Treaty Organization (CENTO), was a military alliance formed on 24 February 1955 by Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, and the UK (with US pressure and promises of military and economic aid) and dissolved on 16 March 1979.

The SouthEast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an international organization for collective defense in Southeast Asia created by the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, or Manila Pact, signed on 8 September 1954 in Manila, the Philippines. It was dissolved 30 June 1977.

Despite its name, SEATO mostly included countries located outside of the region but with an interest either in the region or the organization itself. They were Australia (which administered Papua New Guinea), France (which had recently relinquished French Indochina), New Zealand, Pakistan (which until 1971 included East Pakistan, now Bangladesh), the Philippines, Thailand, the UK (which administered Hong Kong, North Borneo and Sarawak) and the USA.

 

[BlackBat242]

Hmm. Yeah, I have to concede that point with regard to early model RAF Land Harriers. The later models are a very different matter, of course, but if Australia had bought "Land Harriers" in 1982-83, which model would it have been getting? Early RAF Harrier or AV-8B family?

The plan c. 1981 also called for a VSTOL aircraft to be selected in 1983, after the carrier selection in 1982. The only choice, I think, would have been between Sea Harrier (with radar) and Harrier II (with more payload).

The AV-8B wasn’t a “Land Harrier” it was a “Marine Harrier”. So fully speced for flat top operation. Just by sea soldiers rather than sailors. The advantage of the AV-8B is better range/payload and the cost to buy and sustain advantages of being tied into the US system. The Spaniards had gone into Harriers via the USMC’s AV-8A so stuck with what they knew.


An update on this. In 1980-82 the RAN was actually looking closely at the AV-8B but at what was then called the Navalised AV-8B which was the version with the radar nose that later was, sort of, built as the AV-8B Plus from 1993. The reason being the RAN was unconvinced the Sea Harrier FRS.1 could fly effectively over the hot and dirty seas of South East Asia. The RAN was trying to arrange a lease of RN SHARs to go on-board HMAS Australia (ex Invincible) up until the Falklands War ended the chance of that happening.

The radar-equipped AV-8B, which was historically not produced until the 1990s, was originally proposed by McDonnell-Douglas during the development of the AV-8B... this clip is from a book I bought in August 1981 at the BX on MCRD San Diego, a couple of hours after I graduated USMC basic training (I still have that same copy of the book).




Here is what the USMC eventually did in the 1990s to about half of its AV-8B fleet (they told Congress "Its not a new version, just an updating of the existing one" in order to get funding). The changes were so significant that it should have received the "AV-8D" designation... but then Congress would have realized what the Marines were doing... !






Here is the data on the radar:
AV-8B+ APG-65 antenna diameter = 22.8" vs 26.625" in the F/A-18A/B
Source: The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998

 

[GTX]

Carter heightened tensions with the Soviets over the inconsequential Afghan invasion

Hmmm...I would argue that it was the Soviets that heightened tensions by invading or are you criticising Carter for having the audacity to react? If so, how do you classify Ronald Reagan's subsequent supporting of the Mujahideen with arms etc and the support of the Pakistan forces...much of which provided the roots for the Taliban etc?

Either way, this is getting way off topic for a thread about a theoreticalAustralian Invincible Class ship to replace HMAS Melbourne.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Documents from the National Archives of Australia on the replacement for HMAS MELBOURNE:

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=9574726
It seems that by early 1982 the idea of buying INVINCIBLE was going out of favour in Australia in favour of P-3Cs and basing more capable helicopters on the FFGs. If a newbuild aircraft carrier had gone ahead, the shortlist had been narrowed to building one in the US, either to the SCS or a modified LPH design.

 

[TomS]

Documents from the National Archives of Australia on the replacement for HMAS MELBOURNE:

https://recordsearch.naa.gov.au/SearchNRetrieve/Interface/ViewImage.aspx?B=9574726
It seems that by early 1982 the idea of buying INVINCIBLE was going out of favour in Australia in favour of P-3Cs and basing more capable helicopters on the FFGs. If a newbuild aircraft carrier had gone ahead, the shortlist had been narrowed to building one in the US, either to the SCS or a modified LPH design.

Ironically, they might have been better off having Spain build them a second PdA, as the first (adapted from SCS) was starting at about the same time.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Ironically, they might have been better off having Spain build them a second PdA, as the first (adapted from SCS) was starting at about the same time.

That's noted as being ruled out due to cost - building an SCS in the US was considered to be cheaper.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That's noted as being ruled out due to cost - building an SCS in the US was considered to be cheaper.

Strange, it's usually cheaper to build multiples of the same thing.

 

[TomS]

That's noted as being ruled out due to cost - building an SCS in the US was considered to be cheaper.

Spain was really just learning, so I guess that makes sense.

 

[GTX]

Strange, it's usually cheaper to build multiples of the same thing.

I don't think it quite works when talking about things such as ships.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I don't think it quite works when talking about things such as ships.

Virginia class.

 

[TomS]

I don't think it quite works when talking about things such as ships.

It can, especially if you can order multiples of specialized gear at one time so the supplier only has to set up for it once.

OTOH, Spain was still pretty new at the large warship building business at the time, and might not have had the facilities (like building ways) or people (welders, etc) to tackle two light carriers near simultaneously.

 

[Volkodav]

The Sea Dart seems to get a lot of intention when Invincible being sold to Australia is retrospectively looked at but it wasn't a big issue for the RAN. When they were looking at a carrier in the 1970s to build in Australia to replace the Melbourne an area air defence missile system was not a requirement. So when Vickers pitched a design based on the Invincible they didn't include one. Neither did G&C with their sea control ship nor Ingalls with their light carrier. The later was called a modified Iwo Jima but it only shared the hull with this ship.


When the offer came through to sell the actual HMS Invincible it was going to come with the Sea Darts. Removing the system was not part of the plan to Australianise the ship. Sea Dart was in a different class to the SM-1MR operated by the RAN on the DDG and FFG at the time. It was comparable to the SM-1ER and the two systems would have worked very well together providing a RAN task force layered air defence. It is also important to understand at the time the RAN had no program to buy Sea Harriers. Clearly they wanted and needed them but at first HMAS Australia (ex Invincible) was only going to operate Sea Kings with the Skyhawks and Trackers flying from shore until VTOL replacements for both types were acquired. A Sea Harrier, Sea Dart, Standard three layer air defence system would have been very effective at the time.

Sorry for the thread necromancy but discussions on another site reminded me of this discussion and reading between the lines of Abes comment reminds me of an often-overlooked impact of Australia's failure to replace Melbourne, and that is the reduction in the number of squadrons available to the ADF as a whole.

The effect of retiring the carrier was that one front lone and one second line squadron each of strike and fixed wing ASW aircraft were lost to the ADF going forward. There were not replaced, number of land based aircraft were not increased, they were simply gone.

 

[Ironmiked]

I know this threat is years old but here is the story with regards to the transfer of USS Iwo Jima:

Reagan Readied U.S. Warship for ’82 Falklands War (Naval Institute Press)​

By: Sam LaGrone // June 27, 2012

While publicly claiming neutrality between Argentina and the U.K. during the 1982 Falklands War, President Ronald Reagan’s administration had developed plans to loan a ship to the Royal Navy if it lost one of its aircraft carriers in the war, former U.S. Secretary of the Navy, John Lehman, told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26.

Lehman and then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger agreed to support U.K. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the loan of the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima, he said.

“We agreed that [Weinberger] would tell the President that we planned to handle all these requests routinely without going outside existing Navy channels,” Lehman said in a speech provided to the U.S. Naval Institute he made in Portsmouth, U.K. “We would ‘leave the State Department, except for [Secretary of State Al] Haig, out of it.’”



Reagan approved the request without hesitation and his instructions to Weinberger had been simple, “Give Maggie everything she needs to get on with it,” Lehman said in the speech.

At the time, the Royal Navy had deployed HMS Invincible and HMS Hermes to the Falklands. Each carrier fielded five vertical takeoff Sea Harriers armed with American Sidewinder missiles — all major components of the U.K.’s air war in the Falklands.
The contingency plan to provide a replacement carrier was developed at the Royal Navy’s request.
“As in most of the requests from the Brits at the time, it was an informal request on a ‘what if’ basis, Navy to Navy,” Lehman said.


USS Iwo Jima underway in 1984
[U.S. Naval Institute Archive]

Retired U.S. Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons, commander of the U.S. Second Fleet at the time of the conflict, helped develop the plan to supply the Royal Navy with Iwo Jima if the Hermes or Invincible were lost. Though primarily a helicopter carrier, at least one Iwo Jima-class ship was qualified to operate the American version of the Sea Harrier, according to the 1982 edition of Combat Fleets of the World.
“We decided that the USS Iwo Jima would be the ship that would be the easiest for the British to operate and would make for a smooth transfer,” Lyons told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26. “We also identified ‘contract advisors’ who would be on board to help the British with some of the systems.”

The contract advisors needed to help operate the USS Iwo Jimawould have likely been retired sailors with knowledge of the ship’s systems, said current Combat Fleets editor, Eric Wertheim on June 26.

“The arrangement would have probably been a similar operation to The Flying Tigers, when the U.S. sent surplus aircraft to China and then recruited former pilots to fly the planes,” Wertheim said.
“Once the British took over the ship, the crew would have likely been supplemented by privately contracted Americans familiar with the systems.”

Iwo Jima would have functioned well as a replacement for the Invincible as both ships were close in size and function. “Even though the Hermes was a larger ship with more capabilities, Iwo Jima could have filled the gap,” Wertheim said.


HMS Invincible in 1982
[U.S. Naval Institute Archive]

HMS Hermes in 1982
[U.S. Naval Institute Archive]

Currently, tensions over the Falklands remain high since the U.K.’s 1982 victory. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received backlash from the British media in 2010 after she offered to mediate the dispute. Many British observers thought her offer indicated that the U.S. position of recognizing British sovereignty over the islands was fading.

 

[BlackBat242]

I know this threat is years old but here is the story with regards to the transfer of USS Iwo Jima:

.....

“We decided that the USS Iwo Jima would be the ship that would be the easiest for the British to operate and would make for a smooth transfer,” Lyons told the U.S. Naval Institute on June 26. “We also identified ‘contract advisors’ who would be on board to help the British with some of the systems.”

The contract advisors needed to help operate the USS Iwo Jimawould have likely been retired sailors with knowledge of the ship’s systems, said current Combat Fleets editor, Eric Wertheim on June 26.

“The arrangement would have probably been a similar operation to The Flying Tigers, when the U.S. sent surplus aircraft to China and then recruited former pilots to fly the planes,” Wertheim said.
“Once the British took over the ship, the crew would have likely been supplemented by privately contracted Americans familiar with the systems.”

Iwo Jima would have functioned well as a replacement for the Invincible as both ships were close in size and function. “Even though the Hermes was a larger ship with more capabilities, Iwo Jima could have filled the gap,” Wertheim said.

Ummm - not "surplus" aircraft, and not just pilots:

P-40C* Tomahawks were sent straight from the factory to China (actually, Burma, which is where the squadron was formed and trained).

100 pilots and some 200 ground crew and administrative personnel were recruited (1 pilot had Visa problems and remained stateside, 10 US Army flight instructors went over in addition to the 99 pilots - some of those then joined as official AVG pilots.
30 more pilots followed later.


* AVG fighter aircraft came from a Curtiss assembly line which had just started producing Tomahawk IIB models for the Royal Air Force in North Africa. The Tomahawk IIB was similar to the U.S. Army's P-40C, but there is some evidence that Curtiss actually used leftover components when building the fighters intended for China, making them closer to the older P-40B/Tomahawk IIA specification - for instance the AVG aircraft had fuel tanks with external self-sealing coatings, rather than the more effective internal membranes as fitted to the P-40C/Tomahawk IIB.
In May 1942 50 new P-40Es were sent to the AVG - on 4 July 1942 the AVG was formally disbanded and absorbed into the USAAF as the 23rd Fighter Group.

 

[Sineva]

I found this on X.

I loved the artists impression of a "1990s" vtol aircraft with its massive swiveling engines which look to have only one swiveling mounting point & god only knows what they`d do to the airflow over the wing as they began to swivel

 

[Felocie]

I found this on X.

I loved the artists impression of a "1990s" vtol aircraft with its massive swiveling engines which look to have only one swiveling mounting point & god only knows what they`d do to the airflow over the wing as they began to swivel

Looks like V/STOL Type A

 

[Sineva]

Looks like V/STOL Type A

It does look like it might well be based on the grumman concept.
That is rather surprising [To put it mildly]

 

[Felocie]

It does look like it might well be based on the grumman concept.
That is rather surprising [To put it mildly]

A potential influence on the artist could be the US proposal for a Melbourne replacement? This was explored in the early '80s I believe but details haven't been easy to come by. Given the time period, perhaps V/STOL Type A was a part of this discussion? There are more details in the National Library of Australia but I try my best to avoid Canberra

 

[Scott Kenny]

Pardon me digging up ancient history.

IOW a Big Call between an interceptor with secondary strike capability and a strike aircraft with dogfight capability but not necessarily optimised for the interceptor role. In the context of an ASW/escort group leader which is a nation's only carrier, and with a limited number of aircraft on the ship, I'd be biased towards the interceptor, quite frankly. That being said...

I'd expect a mixed group of ~12-16 Harriers. Some ~8x SHARs for CAP and the anti-ship strike, the rest LMRTS for whichever land strikes happen.

With some creativity in terms of getting the LMRTS versions set up to be able to fire Sea Eagles and possibly with the Harrier 2 wing (either UK or US, my preference being the UK 8-hardpoint wing, not the US wing).

[1] There has to be a critical number beyond which having a mixture of types would start making sense, but one baby flat-top of the sort Australia would have been operating isn't enough to take that many to sea.

I suspect that number would be roughly 24 of each type in service.

 

[Felocie]

Pardon me digging up ancient history.

I'd expect a mixed group of ~12-16 Harriers. Some ~8x SHARs for CAP and the anti-ship strike, the rest LMRTS for whichever land strikes happen.

With some creativity in terms of getting the LMRTS versions set up to be able to fire Sea Eagles and possibly with the Harrier 2 wing (either UK or US, my preference being the UK 8-hardpoint wing, not the US wing).




I suspect that number would be roughly 24 of each type in service.

In my copy of Flying Stations it states that the RAN preferred the AV-8B (or rather what became the AV-8B as the platform was in development at the time) as the weapons fielded were more in line with Australian stocks (and planned procurement) and because of what the Harrier II Night Attack became (expanded payload particularly). The intention was not to operate a mixed fleet. Frankly it seems the British aircraft were not viewed favourably by the RAN as a whole, although the V/STOL technology itself was well regarded.

 

[Scott Kenny]

In my copy of Flying Stations it states that the RAN preferred the AV-8B (or rather what became the AV-8B as the platform was in development at the time) as the weapons fielded were more in line with Australian stocks (and planned procurement) and because of what the Harrier II Night Attack became (expanded payload particularly). The intention was not to operate a mixed fleet. Frankly it seems the British aircraft were not viewed favourably by the RAN as a whole, although the V/STOL technology itself was well regarded.

Interesting.

I still think that you'd see a mixed fleet of Night Attack and Radar noses in practice, though. (since IIRC the Radar nose loses the built-in FLIR). Having a radar to chase snoopers away is kinda important!

 

[Felocie]

I must also add, for all the air wing speculation, the government of the day (and I say this as apolitically as possible) had no real interest in retaining the capacity to defend Australia beyond her shores. Indeed the Prime Minister did not support the implementation of V/STOL aircraft and wanted a pure helicopter carrier.

This clashes with the positions of the Navy, who began a program to acquire 12 AV-8B or Sea Harrier V/STOL aircraft and the associated simulator and training aids for introduction in 1987. Surprisingly, it seems they would have been integrated on Melbourne per the plan, although one wonders if this wasn't a stand in for her chosen replacement which should have joined the fleet around that time.
The Prime Minister's position reportedly also clashed with the opinions of the outgoing and incoming ministers of defense who both saw the value in a V/STOL air wing in defense of the fleet and in maintaining striking power at distance from Australia. Flying Stations states that their silence was a political decision as defense was not an election issue at the time (and after all, it was election season).

Ultimately the Falklands war, the Katter committee and various other political machinations sadly brought to a close the fixed wing naval aviation era. Even after the decommissioning of Melbourne Fleet Air Arm aircrew, air traffic controllers, and sailors continued supporting land based operations overseas, including in the Sinai until 1983 when the aircraft were completely withdrawn from service.

 

[Dilandu]

Ultimately the Falklands war, the Katter committee and various other political machinations sadly brought to a close the fixed wing naval aviation era. Even after the decommissioning of Melbourne Fleet Air Arm aircrew, air traffic controllers, and sailors continued supporting land based operations overseas, including in the Sinai until 1983 when the aircraft were completely withdrawn from service.

I wonder, how much a new Invincible-class carrier would cost in 1980s, assuming that RAN would munster political support to fund it? They would likely order one without Sea Dart system, so it wouls be a bit cheaper than RN ones.

 

[Grey Havoc]

You mean a new build rather than the planned transfer of HMS Invincible? Would depend on a number of factors, such as when the contract was agreed, when the new ship was laid down, and where exactly was she to be built.

With regards as to Sea Dart, I'm not so sure they would have deleted that system, despite the preference at the time for US systems.

 

[Felocie]

I wonder, how much a new Invincible-class carrier would cost in 1980s, assuming that RAN would munster political support to fund it? They would likely order one without Sea Dart system, so it wouls be a bit cheaper than RN ones.

Far too much, the option was rejected outright in 1979. The selected options where:
A modified Garibaldi
A modified Sea Control Ship
A modified Iwo Jima with a ski jump

Garibaldi was eliminated first as I understand it, leaving the SCS and the modified Iwo Jima. The SCS was the most attractive option due to the little design work required (PdA had been designed for Spain) but there were problems establishing an agreement to construct the vessel. Ultimately it seems that the Iwo Jima derived design was most likely.

Invincible only became preferred after the 1981 British announcement that Invincible would be divested. Australia was offered the vessel at a lower cost than any new built alternative.

It is prominent in my mind however that an offer for a new built Invincible was made post Falklands war but I can’t for the life of me remember the details, or indeed if it was a real proposal.

With regards as to Sea Dart, I'm not so sure they would have deleted that system, despite the preference at the time for US systems.

I believe there was a Mk 13 armed Invincible discussed although this may have been for the Shah of Iran’s program and not the RAN

 

[MadRat]

Just a reminder that some of this discussion should be focused in the original Invincible thread as this one is Australia specific. This is the original thread regarding this class: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/invincible-class-notes.11062/

 

[Dilandu]

With regards as to Sea Dart, I'm not so sure they would have deleted that system, despite the preference at the time for US systems.

It would increase the cost significantly, adding a unique system to buy ammo and spare parts for. Removing Sea Dart and installing Mk-13 GMLS (or even Mk-26) for SM-1MR would be much more practical.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It would increase the cost significantly, adding a unique system to buy ammo and spare parts for. Removing Sea Dart and installing Mk-13 GMLS (or even Mk-26) for SM-1MR would be much more practical.

Yes, I could see the Mk 26 being possibly adopted there.

 

[pathology_doc]

Some ~8x SHARs for CAP and the anti-ship strike, the rest LMRTS for whichever land strikes happen.

Take all SHARs. Fit a laser ranger/seeker/designator pod on a hardpoint one side and a jamming pod on the other to balance it.

Speaking of wing hardpoints, where's the best place to look up what their capacities and such are? I have Chants Modern Aircraft Armament, but I suspect much of its data are long out of date, and a new book covering the same field would be worthwhile having.

 

[Felocie]

(or even Mk-26)

Yes, I could see the Mk 26 being possibly adopted there.

I believe this is unlikely. At the time we operated three Mk 13 armed Perth class DDGs and we had planned to procure Mk 13 armed Light Destroyers. This program was subsequently replaced by the Mk 13 armed Adelaide class FFGs. Introducing a second launcher type would've been contrary to practice at the time, particularly given we did not require our launchers to fire ASROC (we used Ikara instead) and Mk13 had better magazine density

 

[Scott Kenny]

Take all SHARs. Fit a laser ranger/seeker/designator pod on a hardpoint one side and a jamming pod on the other to balance it.

Which laser targeting pod was integrated on the SHAR?

Also, wasn't the Jammer pod integrated into a gun pod in place of the gun? I was contemplating sticking a Laser pod into one gun pod.

 

[Dilandu]

I believe this is unlikely. At the time we operated three Mk 13 armed Perth class DDGs and we had planned to procure Mk 13 armed Light Destroyers. This program was subsequently replaced by the Mk 13 armed Adelaide class FFGs. Introducing a second launcher type would've been contrary to practice at the time, particularly given we did not require our launchers to fire ASROC (we used Ikara instead) and Mk13 had better magazine density

Agree with your assumption, it would be simpler & cheaper to install a pair of Mk-13 GMLS, than adapt Mk-26 (which is a new type, not standard for RAN).

 

[pathology_doc]

Which laser targeting pod was integrated on the SHAR?

Also, wasn't the Jammer pod integrated into a gun pod in place of the gun? I was contemplating sticking a Laser pod into one gun pod.

IRL I don't know, but since we're already in alternative-history territory it can't be that hard to do.

I would NOT give up the guns in a ground-attack context. Ever.

 

[TomS]

IIRC the Radar nose loses the built-in FLIR).

No, the radar replaced the Angle-Rate Bombing System. The FLIR sat on top of the nose in the night attack version and was retained in the radar version.