Cold Warriors: The Essex Class in the Cold War

SSgtC said:
Some good options there. As far as timeline, right now, they're trying to get a feel for what is flying right now and what may be coming. So this is more an exploratory specification than the final request. The RAAF made the fighter specification intentionally easy to meet to ensure the greatest possible number of entrants so they could choose the best one for Australia
Click to expand...

I will aim to do a more detailed analysis of the contenders/options etc this weekend.
 
lordroel said:
SSgtC said:
isayyo2 said:
What would the Skylancer's new designation be after 1962, F-6B?
Click to expand...
That or maybe the F-7 with the F2Y getting a different designation.
Click to expand...
Would that not be the F-7D with the D standing for Douglas if i am correct.
Click to expand...
post 1962 the constructor letter disapeared

F-8U meant "Vought 8th fighter for the USN"

F-8 mean " fighter number 8 in the new USN / USAF fighter sequence".
 
Essentially correct, but drop the hyphen from the old US Navy designations
- Vought F8U Crusader, new designation F-8
- Douglas F4D Skyray, new designation F-6

Subtype in the old system F8U-2 became F-8C in the new system.
To complicate things:
- F8U-2N became F-8D
- F8U-2NE became F-8E
- F8U-1D became DF-8A
 
Last edited:
Arjen said:
Essentially correct, but drop the hyphen from the old US Navy designations
- Vought F8U Crusader, new designation F-8
- Douglas F4D Skyray, new designation F-6

Subtype in the old system F8U-2 became F-8C in the new system.
To complicate things:
- F8U-2N became F-8D
- F8U-2NE became F-8E
- F8U-1D became DF-8A
Click to expand...
So one aircraft that never entered service might mess up the entire designations as we know it.
 
The Mirage III was chosen by Australia in real life, which seems a good choice to me.
The RAAF liked the F4s they got to replace the F111C while the bugs were ironed out.
The A4 Skyhawk always seems to get dismissed here as not sexy enough but it could ship Sidewinders and Bullpups and served the US and Israel pretty well.
The RAF could weigh in with Javelins and Victors
 

Attachments

  • 13-2.jpg
    13-2.jpg
    102.8 KB · Views: 32
  • 85e01716fad70549e750d110191ef082.jpg
    85e01716fad70549e750d110191ef082.jpg
    26.7 KB · Views: 30
  • 46498396_2506191969607069_3903566380854673408_o.jpg
    46498396_2506191969607069_3903566380854673408_o.jpg
    43.6 KB · Views: 44
Last edited:
I thought the UK put the Lighting against the Mirage III.
 
February 1, 1958
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

The process of winnowing the wheat from the chaff begins at the ministry of defense. Multiple aircraft are submitted for each specification issued. To meet the fighter specification, the United Kingdom offered the English Electric Lightning while Hawker submitted their proposed P.1121 design and Saunders-Roe their SR.177 both of which had been suspended as a result of the Defense White Paper. France offered a modified Dassault Mirage III that could be fitted with a Rolls Royce Avon engine. From Sweden, Saab offered their Draken. While from the United States, a virtual avalanche of designs were offered. From Republic Aviation, the F-105 Thunderchief was offered. From Lockheed came a proposal for their F-104 Starfighter. Vought offered three different versions of their Crusader while McDonnell Aircraft submitted their in development F4H Phantom II. Convair submitted a proposal to supply the RAAF with their F-106 Delta Dart pending government approval to export the design. The final design offered was from Grumman for their proposed Super Tiger. The work of narrowing down the options promised to be long and tiring.

Much as the fighter specification had, the bomber specification also resulted in a plethora of designs being submitted. North American offered their A3J Vigilante while McDonnell and Vought both offered modified versions of their Phantom and Crusader fighter entrants. Boeing and General Dynamics each submitted a design that was little more than speculation and doodling. Boeing concurrently offered an updated version of their B-47 subsonic bomber. Republic submitted their F-105 in a bid to fill both the fighter and bomber specification. While Convair, again subject to government approval, offered the B-58 Hustler.

The United Kingdom submitted a rough proposal from BAC for a high speed penetrator that would meet the offered specification. They also proposed supplying the Avro Vulcan, which met all the Australian requirements with the exception of speed. The final submission offered was from France who proposed supplying their Dassault Mirage IV. The Royal Australian Air Force would have their hands full for many months trying to narrow down their options.
 
List of Offered Aircraft

Fighter Specification

United Kingdom

English Electric Lightning
Hawker P.1121
Saunders-Roe SR.177

France

Dassault Mirage IIIO

Sweden

Saab 35 Draken

United States

Republic F-105 Thunderchief
Lockheed F-104 Starfighter
Vought F8U-1 Crusader I
Vought F8U-2 Crusader II
Vought F8U-3 Crusader III
McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom II
Convair F-106 Delta Dart
Grumman F11F-2

Bomber Specification

United Kingdom

BAC TSR-2
Avro Vulcan

France

Dassault Mirage IV

United States

Republic F-105 Thunderchief
Convair B-58 Hustler
North American A3J Vigilante
Boeing Unnamed tactical bomber proposal (OTL F-111 proposal)
General Dynamics Unnamed tactical bomber proposal (OTL F-111 Aardvark)
Boeing B-47 Stratojet
McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom II
Vought F8U-3
 
Last edited:
SSgtC said:
List of Offered Aircraft

Fighter Specification

United Kingdom

English Electric Lightning
Hawker P.1121
Saunders-Roe SR.177

France

Dassault Mirage IIIO

Sweden

Saab 35 Draken

United States

Republic F-105 Thunderchief
F-104 Starfighter
Vought F8U-1
Vought F8U-2
Vought F8U-3
McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom II
Convair F-106 Delta Dart
Grumman F11F-2

Bomber Specification

United Kingdom

TSR-2
Avro Vulcan

France

Dassault Mirage IV

United States

Republic F-105 Thunderchief
Convair B-58 Hustler
North American A3J Vigilante
Boeing Unnamed tactical bomber proposal (OTL F-111 proposal)
General Dynamics Unnamed tactical bomber proposal (OTL F-111 Aardvark)
Boeing B-47 Stratojet
McDonnell F4H-1 Phantom II
Vought F8U-3
Click to expand...
Good list, so many choices to pick from.
 
And for bombers, IIRC there was a two-seat version of the 1121 (1129?) in play early in the TSR-2 submission saga. Paul’s excellent 1121 ProjectTech book has more info, and I should be able to access it at the weekend.
 
The bad guys (Indonesia?) are at worst only going to get Mig 21s and Tu16s with perhaps a handful of Tu22 Blinders in the late 60s.
Australian Mirage IIIs and F105 Thunderchiefs would be my mix plus A4s for Melbourne (F8 Crusaders would be nice but you need a Centaur/Essex for them).
No paper Brit stuff could arrive much before 1968 so V Bombers are the only UK candidates and Aussie gets them free with nuclear weapons at Singapore until 1970 anyway.
 
A J75 combo of F-106s and twin seat F-105s would be equally odd and fun to see.

I do wonder about the alternative actions Australia could take... Could they, should they, go full nuclear with bombs and energy? Eisenhower with his Atoms for Peace plan had nuclear desalination front and center, it could certainly help with some water woes. Depending on how dicey things get with Indonesia, ‘White Australia’ may end at a later date?
 
uk 75 said:
The bad guys (Indonesia?) are at worst only going to get Mig 21s and Tu16s with perhaps a handful of Tu22 Blinders in the late 60s.
Australian Mirage IIIs and F105 Thunderchiefs would be my mix plus A4s for Melbourne (F8 Crusaders would be nice but you need a Centaur/Essex for them).
No paper Brit stuff could arrive much before 1968 so V Bombers are the only UK candidates and Aussie gets them free with nuclear weapons at Singapore until 1970 anyway.
Click to expand...
Right now, Australia is worried about the equipment that Indonesia is getting as there is a very real possibility that they may end up clashing with them over their portion of New Guinea or Borneo. They're confident that they would still win because of better training, but why push it if you don't have to? It's essentially the OTL attitude kicked up one or two notches in response to earlier Indonesian upgrades and seeing that they are at least competent in the air given their recent success against the rebels. So in that vein, at the moment, they're keeping all their options on the table. That won't really change unless Indonesia does something that moves them from minimally competent threat to oh holy shit territory.
isayyo2 said:
A J75 combo of F-106s and twin seat F-105s would be equally odd and fun to see.

I do wonder about the alternative actions Australia could take... Could they, should they, go full nuclear with bombs and energy? Eisenhower with his Atoms for Peace plan had nuclear desalination front and center, it could certainly help with some water woes. Depending on how dicey things get with Indonesia, ‘White Australia’ may end at a later date?
Click to expand...
Australia very nearly went nuclear in OTL. It was only some very fancy diplomatic footwork that kept them from building a bomb. And even today they are considered a nuclear capable state that could build a bomb in very short order should the need arise. It wouldn't take much of a push for them to go full nuclear in an ATL
 
SSgtC said:
And even today they are considered a nuclear capable state that could build a bomb in very short order should the need arise. It wouldn't take much of a push for them to go full nuclear in an ATL
Click to expand...

Yes, but for now we prefer to rely own the rabid drop bears as a more effective deterrent...:cool::)
 
Does Australia , have Nuclear power station? If not how would the obtain the fissile material in short order? I know they Australian does have natural reserves of uranium, do they have the resources to refine it?
 
JohnR said:
Does Australia , have Nuclear power station? If not how would the obtain the fissile material in short order? I know they Australian does have natural reserves of uranium, do they have the resources to refine it?
Click to expand...
Yes. They had HIFAR from 1958 until it was replaced by OPAL in 2006. When HIFAR went critical in January, 1958 it used highly enriched uranium. So they had the capability to domestically produce nuclear weapons should they need to. Though their preferred option was to acquire either British or American weapons under a dual key system (at least i assume they would be operated under dual key, it's possible they just wanted to buy them outright).
 
Strange though it seems now there was an attempt by the US and UK to establish a NATO style military organisation int the region
en.m.wikipedia.org

Southeast Asia Treaty Organization - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org en.m.wikipedia.org
.
The UK deployed V bombers to Singapore in support of SEATO and the TSR2/F111K was also supposed to be assigned. Even after the UK pulled out East of Suez it practised deploying forces as part of the Five Power Defence Arrangement for Singapore. By the 70s the post Vietnam era led to different policies.
 
On aircraft options. UK.

F.177 would only be an option if the UK funded it to production. That has implications for the Lightning.
This would be well into service by mid 60's for both RN and RAF.

Similar with P1121, it would need at least prototype flight, implying HSA fund that or persuade UK government to. ISD ought to be ahead of mid 60's depending on variant chosen.

TSR.2, needs funding to service for the RAF first. ISD is likely in austere form before '68, but full capability could suffer delays.

25 slots of Victor production was available. Efforts to sell that included South Africa.
 
zen said:
On aircraft options. UK.

F.177 would only be an option if the UK funded it to production. That has implications for the Lightning.
This would be well into service by mid 60's for both RN and RAF.

Similar with P1121, it would need at least prototype flight, implying HSA fund that or persuade UK government to. ISD ought to be ahead of mid 60's depending on variant chosen.

TSR.2, needs funding to service for the RAF first. ISD is likely in austere form before '68, but full capability could suffer delays.

25 slots of Victor production was available. Efforts to sell that included South Africa.
Click to expand...
Some of the offerings are, as you've noted, little more than desperation heaves by their manufacturers to keep their programs alive. Some are just to get Australia thinking about them for future requirements. This will all play a part in how and what is purchased. Even the development programs though have value to them as it would give Australia a domestically produced aircraft that boosts their industry, keeps money at home and gives them the opportunity to market it internationally. Will that offset the development costs and delayed ISD? Stay tuned
 
Since this is all happen ing as the V-bomber force ramps up
zen said:
25 slots of Victor production was available. Efforts to sell that included South Africa.
Click to expand...

On the V-bomber front, things are spooling up nicely. Production of the Valiant has just ended months before, and has had it's combat debut a year earlier... Talk is already I wonder if an honest push from Australia for a significant number of bombers, might Britain offer to hand over the low hour Valiants rather cheap and completely divest the fleet for more Victors and Vulcans. They could hand off Valiants 1-for-1 as the two more advanced types come off the line.

Obviously, in hindsight, this would become a terrible mess with the fatigue problems, but that is years away from even being glimpsed.

I just can't fathom a Victor or Vulcan buy. Second hand Valiants or B-47's make more sense, but even that seems like a significant drain on the budget, to be honest. Which means we're back to the tactical strike fighters. And several of the more attractive, but more expensive options are years away even ignoring the inevitable delays.
 
SSgtC said:
Australia very nearly went nuclear in OTL. It was only some very fancy diplomatic footwork that kept them from building a bomb. And even today they are considered a nuclear capable state that could build a bomb in very short order should the need arise. It wouldn't take much of a push for them to go full nuclear in an ATL
Click to expand...

I may be misremembering some “what if?” musings on this and other sites, but I thought there was a suggestion at one time that the UK deterrent be extended to the Commonwealth.
 
SSgtC said:
zen said:
On aircraft options. UK.

F.177 would only be an option if the UK funded it to production. That has implications for the Lightning.
This would be well into service by mid 60's for both RN and RAF.

Similar with P1121, it would need at least prototype flight, implying HSA fund that or persuade UK government to. ISD ought to be ahead of mid 60's depending on variant chosen.

TSR.2, needs funding to service for the RAF first. ISD is likely in austere form before '68, but full capability could suffer delays.

25 slots of Victor production was available. Efforts to sell that included South Africa.
Click to expand...
Some of the offerings are, as you've noted, little more than desperation heaves by their manufacturers to keep their programs alive. Some are just to get Australia thinking about them for future requirements. This will all play a part in how and what is purchased. Even the development programs though have value to them as it would give Australia a domestically produced aircraft that boosts their industry, keeps money at home and gives them the opportunity to market it internationally. Will that offset the development costs and delayed ISD? Stay tuned
Click to expand...

There is one constant across combat aircraft history... "if the aircraft manufacturer own country air force don't buy it, foreign countries won't buy it either"
Mirage 4000 & Northrop F-20 are two startling examples of this. Top aircraft, but their own country don't buy them, and then... they die. And there are countless other examples like this - Grumman Super Tiger, for a start. Hawker P.1081 - for Australia.
Hawker P.1121 won't break that rule, unfortunately. SR.177 even less.

RAAF Victors would be completely awesome.

From memory, circa 1960 Handley Page tried resisting the British government amalgamation of aircraft makers into BAC / HSA and as a punishment, the said government went as far as coercing the company, including cancelling some of the last Victor B2s. Didn't the company went bankrupt as a result ?
 
Archibald said:
There is one constant across combat aircraft history... "if the aircraft manufacturer own country air force don't buy it, foreign countries won't buy it either"
Mirage 4000 & Northrop F-20 are two startling examples of this. Top aircraft, but their own country don't buy them, and then... they die. And there are countless other examples like this - Grumman Super Tiger, for a start. Hawker P.1081 - for Australia.
Hawker P.1121 won't break that rule, unfortunately. SR.177 even less.
Click to expand...
Well, that sword cuts both ways.

Just to use an example, if the Saudis want to buy 75 M4000, the price Dassault is going to be able to offer for a short run is not going to be anything like the price they can support if AdA is buying 200 as well. The price for both manufacturing and sustainment are going to be impacted by economies of scale, including the one time price of acquiring or devoting factory floor space, setting up all the jigs and tooling, hiring binge for production, etc, etc

The Saudis could very well make a firm offer to buy 75-125 M4000 at a price higher than the Tornado, and it could be equally likely that Dassault walks away without enough orders elsewhere to justify the return on investment.

It's less "if it's not good enough for the USAF/AdA then I won't buy it", and more, "if I can't piggy back on a massive commitment by the home country for development, manufacturing, and sustainment, I can't afford what this will cost me to buy and maintain a boutique fleet of aircraft".

But you're right, the money is going to be heavily-tilted against anything not bound for production elsewise.
 
The Saudis are very special case, because they have shitload of petro-dollars and also, well, because their military is grossly inept.
Even in this extreme case, the 4000 didn't made it - while the Tornado F3 and F-15 did.

In the end I 100% agree with your point of view.
 
Was just looking at the Starfighter page on Wiki. First USAF squadron about to stand up (late Feb 58), grounded 3 months later because of engine and gun issues. And we have later the USAF airframe order cut from around 700 to around 100.

This timeline has the potential to be very cruel to the Starfighter.
 
starviking said:
Was just looking at the Starfighter page on Wiki. First USAF squadron about to stand up (late Feb 58), grounded 3 months later because of engine and gun issues. And we have later the USAF airframe order cut from around 700 to around 100.

This timeline has the potential to be very cruel to the Starfighter.
Click to expand...
*Inspects fingernails and whistles innocently*
 
South Africa bought the S50 Buccaneer which entered service in 1965. Austalia might have found this a useful way of replacing its Canberras in a hurry.
Handley Page were desperate to have extra Victor orders once Vulcan became the only Skybolt carrier. Victors in the bomber, recce, tanker role would have been a valuable asset to RAAF. They could also have cartied missiles.
Lightnings seem too short legged and underarmed.. Javelins carried more missiles.
Drawing board or unflown types like TSR2 require a lot of fantasy assumptions.
 
SSgtC said:
starviking said:
Was just looking at the Starfighter page on Wiki. First USAF squadron about to stand up (late Feb 58), grounded 3 months later because of engine and gun issues. And we have later the USAF airframe order cut from around 700 to around 100.

This timeline has the potential to be very cruel to the Starfighter.
Click to expand...
*Inspects fingernails and whistles innocently*
Click to expand...

Early F-104A service with USAF indeed led to major carnage of pilots. Of the 17 YF-104s very few survived.

Sadly, even if the Starfighter bribes... pardon, sold in fewer numbers than OTL, Lockheed will probably still bribe governments, just to sell others Lockheed aircraft. Hercules, Tristars, whatever... there is no lack of alternatives. Of course, honest deals and sales are also alternative, but no such things seemingly existed or exist today, as far as combat aircraft go...
I often wonder if Dassault, having been screwed by Lockheed in Germany in 1958, got the lesson. Switzerland and Belgium later Mirage deals - and huge scandals - seem to confirm this...
 
If you thought the bombing koalas were frightening sit down and read this

GREATER AUSTRALIA

GREATER AUSTRALIA
beyondthesprues.com
but meanwhile in the real world Jacinta just got re elected
 
While you're all cheering Jacinta there are some Starfighters to look at

Gekko's Profiles

Gekko's Profiles
beyondthesprues.com
 

Attachments

  • RAAFsplinterA3-79Kate.jpg
    RAAFsplinterA3-79Kate.jpg
    14.1 KB · Views: 36
Volkodav said:
uk 75 said:
If you thought the bombing koalas were frightening sit down and read this

GREATER AUSTRALIA

GREATER AUSTRALIA
beyondthesprues.com
but meanwhile in the real world Jacinta just got re elected
Click to expand...
GTX wrote that
Click to expand...
Woops! genius on my part. But links were all ones I liked which was why I posted them. Canada, Australia and New Zealand feature prominently in the best alternate history stuff and artwork.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom