Alternative RAAF fleets.

[NOMISYRRUC]

Mate, don't run me down that rabbit hole, that way lies madness. RAAF Lightning fighter-bomber or TSR2 sort of stuff!

I suspect that half of you think I'm mad in the first place. So no change there. And the other half will soon agree. Because there's more where that came from.

Much as I want the RAAF to have bought 50 TSR.2s for a one-for-one replacement of its Canberras (to equip 3 squadrons and a training flight) getting it to buy Nimrod in its OTL or TTL form is a much easer proposition.

More "mad" ideas are that No. 79 Sqn moved to Australia in 1968 and converted to Mirage IIIs instead of disbanding and No. 73 Sqn didn't disband in 1973. As there were still 116 Mirage IIIs to support 5 squadrons and a larger OCU there would be a 25% higher attrition rate after 1968 and a 67% higher attrition rate after 1973 and the surviving aircraft would wear out at a faster rate due to 25% higher usage rates 1968-73 and 67% higher usage rates from 1973.

As a result the OTL batch of 6 Mirage IIIDs delivered 1973-74 IOTL is increased to 40 for a total of 150 aircraft instead to 116 to support the 67% larger front-line force and 67% larger OCU. These aircraft had Commonwealth-built Atar 9K-50 engines and the survivors of the original 110 Mirages have them fitted in the second half of the 1970s as part of a SLEP programme to increase their fatigue lives (if that's the right expression).

Meanwhile, the RNZAF had a squadron of Canberras and a squadron of Venoms in the 1960s. ITTL both converted to Mirage IIIs built by Commonwealth between the completion of the first run of 110 Mirage IIIs and the second run of 40 Mirage IIIs. This increased the total number of Mirage IIIs built by Commonwealth from 114 to 198. Instead of forming a training flight to support the two squadrons the RNZAF aircrew did their conversion training at the RAAF's OCU.

The RNZAF also bought 16 MB-326H built by Commonwealth instead of the Strikemasters. However, instead of using them to equip a training squadron they were delivered to the equivalent units in the RAAF because the two air forces created a joint training organisation in an effort to cut costs.

Then in the 1980s the RAAF bought 125 Hornets its Mirages and the RNZAF bought 50 Hornets to replace its Mirages. All 175 were assembled in Australia from Completely Knocked Down (CKD) kits and both nations got offset packages of at east 100%.

More madness is that the RAAF has to support 5 Mirage III squadrons from 1973 instead of 3 and 50 TSR.2s from 1973 instead of 24 F-111Cs. Therefore the training organisation has to be expanded. So more CT4s and MB-326s were built.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I suspect that half of you think I'm mad in the first place. So no change there. And the other half will soon agree. Because there's more where that came from.

And for my next trick I shall descend from simple madness to utter fruit-cakery.

IOTL the plan was to refit Sydney to the same standard as Melbourne and AIUI enough Gannets and Sea Venoms were purchased to form air groups for both ships.

However, ITTL around 1950 some cost accountant reaches the conclusion that it's quicker and (in the long run) cheaper to complete another suspended Majestic class carrier instead of refitting Sydney. His Antipodean Majesty's Government buys Leviathan from his Britannic Majesty's Government ITTL and it's completed as HMAS Brisbane circa 1955.

In common with Warrior & Melbourne IOTL, Sydney sails to the UK circa 1955 and her crew takes Melbourne over on arrival. Sydney reverts to her original name (Terrible) and the RN keeps her in reserve until 1965 when she's scrapped.

Brisbane's subsequent career was much the same as Melbourne's. Except they were replaced in the 1980s by two Invincible class or one CVA.01 class. As a result the RAN buys more Wessexes, twice as many Skyhawks, twice as many Skyhawks and twice as many Trackers because it as two air groups to support instead of one. This also means that Commonwealth built 36 MB-326Hs for the RAN instead of 18.

This is part of a RAN timeline where:

• 6 Darings were built instead of 2 Battles and 4 Darings with all 6 ships completed by the middle 1950s.
• The 6 Type 12s announced in IIRC 1950 are completed in the late 1950s instead of 4 the that were completed in the early 1960s and 2 being cancelled.
• All 3 Tribals were modernised as planned IOTL and all 5 Emergency type destroyers were rebuilt as Type 15 frigates, instead of 2 and 4 respectively.
• The above were replaced by 8 Type 12s built during the course of the 1960s which include the OTL Swan and Torrens.
• The RNZN still acquires 4 frigates (2 Rothesays and 2 Leanders) during this period, but they're built in Australia instead of the UK.
• 4 County class may be built in Australia instead of the 3 US-built Adams class.
• If they are some of the weapons and electronics, such as the Seaslug and ADAWS-1 would have been manufactured in the UK.
• But if they are they may be replacements for the 3 Tribals and one Type 15. In which case the number of of Type 12s built in the 1960s would have been reduced from 12 to 8 - that is
• The Light Destroyer (DDL) wasn't cancelled and they're built at the rate of one every one-or-two years until the ANZAC frigate is ready for production.
• The DDL was similar to the British Type 42 and both ships had the same machinery.
• Therefore, ITTL both navies may buy a hybrid design, which is the DDL hull with a British payload. E.g. Sea Dart instead of Standard MR, a 4.5in gun instead of the 5in, ADAWS instead of NTDS and a British radar (preferably an earlier Type 1022) instead of SPS-48.

The reader may notice that ITTL Australia has a rolling shipbuilding programme of half-to-one "frigoyer" a year from the late 1940s to the end of the Cold War. That's instead of OTL's stop-go policy of US imports and domestically built ships. As a result it might not cost excessively more than what happened IOTL. Therefore, I may not be a fruit-cake after all.

 

[Scott Kenny]

And for my next trick I shall descend from simple madness to utter fruit-cakery.

IOTL the plan was to refit Sydney to the same standard as Melbourne and AIUI enough Gannets and Sea Venoms were purchased to form air groups for both ships.

However, ITTL around 1950 some cost accountant reaches the conclusion that it's quicker and (in the long run) cheaper to complete another suspended Majestic class carrier instead of refitting Sydney. His Antipodean Majesty's Government buys Leviathan from his Britannic Majesty's Government ITTL and it's completed as HMAS Brisbane circa 1955.

In common with Warrior & Melbourne IOTL, Sydney sails to the UK circa 1955 and her crew takes Melbourne over on arrival. Sydney reverts to her original name (Terrible) and the RN keeps her in reserve until 1965 when she's scrapped.

Brisbane's subsequent career was much the same as Melbourne's. Except they were replaced in the 1980s by two Invincible class or one CVA.01 class. As a result the RAN buys more Wessexes, twice as many Skyhawks, twice as many Skyhawks and twice as many Trackers because it as two air groups to support instead of one. This also means that Commonwealth built 36 MB-326Hs for the RAN instead of 18.

This gets my usual objection that you need 3 ships to have one at sea. Though you could get away with 2.5 air wings instead of a full 3, because one ship is in shipyard and basically unavailable for operations while the other two would need air wings. The 0.5 air wing is the OCUs, brought to full strength via the attrition spares in case of war.

 

[Rule of cool]

All of that is a huge ask from a tax and recruitment base of 10 million in 1960 and less than 13 in 1970 with full employment.

There is likely an opportunity to leverage the Vietnam commitment for a somewhat larger set of RAAF, RAN and even Army equipment fleets. Not having conscription would be a start, having a larger Army armour and medium artillery, RAAF and RAN effort to compensate. But this won't make Australia a great regional power, especially once the region settles down after Vietnam.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

This gets my usual objection that you need 3 ships to have one at sea. Though you could get away with 2.5 air wings instead of a full 3, because one ship is in shipyard and basically unavailable for operations while the other two would need air wings. The 0.5 air wing is the OCUs, brought to full strength via the attrition spares in case of war.

So you're objecting Australian to having 66% of that capability ITTL instead of 33% of that capability IOTL?

Message 162 was about Australia being able to complete its 1952 naval programme by 1960. That was for a total of 116 ships (36 active and 80 reserve) consisting of 2 aircraft carriers, 3 cruisers, 9 destroyers, 11 fast frigates, 14 slow frigates, 32 minesweepers and 45 other vessels.

There weren't any submarines because the RN based some submarines in Australia for A/S training. E.g. according to Jane's 1952-53 there were 3 T class submarines on loan from the RN. The were based at Sydney and formed the Fourth Submarine Squadron.

Jane's 1952-53 said that the 1947 Programme was for £A75 million to be spent over 5 years. It's unclear whether that's the total for the ADF or the RAN's portion. However, it did include Melbourne, Sydney, the 4 Darings and the 2 Battles.

It also said that the 1952 Programme was for £A559 million to be spend over 3 years, including £A137 million on the RAN. The RAN's personnel strength was to be increased from 13,490 in 1952 to 17,000 by 1953. AFAIK IOTL that was where the programme failed. The Australian Government was prepared to spend the money needed to build, maintain and man the ships, but it couldn't recruit the men in the numbers required. I deliberately wrote men, because I suspect that women were joining the WRANS in the numbers required.

As I'm still in fruitcake mode the plan could be for 3 aircraft carriers, with the third ship in place of some or all of the 3 cruisers, which were Australia, Hobart and Shropshire. That would give you your desired force of one ship fully-operational, one ship working-up and one ship in-refit/reserve. There'd be two operational and one training air group to support them. The first ship to go into refit/reserve would be Sydney (to bring her up to the same standard as Melbourne) upon the delivery of Brisbane.

I'd also have Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney built as Centaur class ships instead of Majestics. However, I can't think of a way to do it that doesn't upset @EwenS and I upset him far too often already.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

All of that is a huge ask from a tax and recruitment base of 10 million in 1960 and less than 13 in 1970 with full employment.

There is likely an opportunity to leverage the Vietnam commitment for a somewhat larger set of RAAF, RAN and even Army equipment fleets. Not having conscription would be a start, having a larger Army armour and medium artillery, RAAF and RAN effort to compensate. But this won't make Australia a great regional power, especially once the region settles down after Vietnam.

I did write that I was mad in Message 161 and a fruit-cake in Message 162.

FWIW "huge ask" and "leverage" turn me into Ed Reardon as well.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

All of that is a huge ask from a tax and recruitment base of 10 million in 1960 and less than 13 in 1970 with full employment.

There is likely an opportunity to leverage the Vietnam commitment for a somewhat larger set of RAAF, RAN and even Army equipment fleets. Not having conscription would be a start, having a larger Army armour and medium artillery, RAAF and RAN effort to compensate. But this won't make Australia a great regional power, especially once the region settles down after Vietnam.

You're lucky that I didn't suggest that the Australian CAF and New Zealand TAF squadrons weren't disbanded. The CAF squadrons re-equip with Sabres given up by the Regular fighter squadrons when they re-equip with Mirage IIIs and in turn Mirage IIIs when the regular fighter squadrons convert to the Hornet. I'll have to think about the TAF squadrons.

 

[Rule of cool]

I did write that I was mad in Message 161 and a fruit-cake in Message 162.

FWIW "huge ask" and "leverage" turn me into Ed Reardon as well.

You're doing left and right of arc, with the other end of the spectrum having to borrow a white flag from an AFL Goal Umpire because the government is too mean to buy one.

 

[Rule of cool]

More "mad" ideas are that No. 79 Sqn moved to Australia in 1968 and converted to Mirage IIIs instead of disbanding

I'd prefer that 79 sqn was sent from Thailand to South Vietnam in mid 1966, once 1 ATF was established in Phouc Tuy province, either at Vung Tau airbase with the Caribous etc or Phan Rang where the Canberras went in 1967. By then the RAAF Sabres had been well and truly sidelined in their air defence role by the USAF due to the restrictive RoE and obsolete aircraft. Given the Sabres were already being replaced by Mirages they might as well be used up in combat and 79 sqn could be disbanded once the Canberras arrived in 1967.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Personally, the F-86Hs (with the 8,920 lb.s.t. J73) would have been a good choice for the RAAF (4x20mm cannons on this version).

Or go "joint" and just buy the FJ-4 Fury for both the RAAF and RAN - it had J65 (BS Sapphire) engines that were a match in performance for the 100-series Avons of the CA.27 (and RAAF Canberras) - (7,700 lb.s.t. vs 7,500 lb.s.t. for the Avon) - and Wright had, by 1959, developed a 8,300 lb.s.t. J65 (a possibility for an upgrade program in 1960). There was a 8,000 lb.s.t. Avon 100 developed in the late 1950s as well.

The Avon , J65, & J73 required 120 lb/sec intake air-mass flow, and the J47 only needed 103 lb/sec.

I suspect the RAAF would insist on Avons for commonality with the Canberra, and it would be likely easier to modify the FJ-4 for Avons than it had been to do the CA-27 - since the intakes & exhaust were already sized for the J65's needs, which were the same as the Avon's. Just the engine bay and mounts, and engine connections (all of which were in the aft fuselage) would need altering - not the whole fuselage like in the CA-27.

The FJ-4's wings, tail surfaces, etc were all designed for transonic flight, and it easily broke Mach 1 in a shallow dive (or level if "clean") - when fitted with an auxiliary rocket motor the two FJ-4Fs (which were otherwise unmodified in fuselage*, wing, or tail surfaces) hit Mach 1.41!

The Fury would likely have been easy to fit with an air-intercept radar (like that in the F-86K, which was designed for export, and was designed for 2x20mm cannon, which was the FJ-4's armament), and this would provide an improved capability for air-air combat for both the RAAF and the RAN (the FJ-4 could operate from ant carrier that the A-4C could).

* They were sometimes fitted with a small instrument package that fit in the upper intake lip, and this may have helped - see the FJ-4F thread. https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/rocket-boosted-fj-4-fury.7852/post-754305

The RAN purchased 39 De Havilland Sea Venom FAW.53s for Melbourne and Sydney which added to the 112 Sabres makes a total of 151 aircraft.

• Dimensions - Melbourne's hangars were 52ft wide and had a clearance of 17ft 6in.
  • FJ-2 & 3 Fury.
    • 37ft 6in Maximum Overall Length.
    • 22ft 6in Folded Wingspan.
    • 15ft 10 in Maximum Overall Height - which was with the wings folded.
  • FJ-4 & 4B Fury.
    • 36ft 3in Maximum Overall Length.
    • 27ft 6in Folded Wingspan.
    • 13ft 11in Maximum Overall Height - which was with the wings foled.
  • A-4F Skyhawk.
    • 40ft 3¼in Maximum Overall Length.
    • 27ft 6in None-folding Wingspan.
    • 15ft 0in Maximum Overall Height.
  • Sea Venom FAW.22 (I don't have the dimensions of the FAW.53).
    • 36ft 8in Maximum Overall Length.
    • 23ft 0in Folded Wingspan.
    • 9ft 10in Maximum Overall Height - which was with the wings folded.
      • That's for the Aquilon and as all Sea Venoms had the same folded wingspan, the height with wings folded was the same.
• Despite that the spotting on a CVA-19 class aircraft carrier was.
  • 106 Skyhawks .
    • And.
  • 78 FJ Furies regardless of the mark. I expected FJ-2 and 3 to be more than FJ-4 & 4B.
• Radars.
  • APG-30 FJ-2, 3 and 4 Fury and the FJ-4B Fury had provision for it.
  • APG-53 A-4F Skyhawk and according to the Internet search A-4G too.
  • APS-57 Sea Venom FAW.53 which in British service was known as the Airborne Interception Mk 21 (AI.21).
• First flight dates.
  • Commonwealth Sabre.
    • October 1951 the Australian Government signed a manufacturing licence for the Sabre.
    • 01.04.52 CA-26 Sabre prototype - planned.
    • 03.08.53 CA-26 Sabre prototype - actual.
    • 13.07.54 CA-27 Sabre production (Mk 30).
  • North American FJ Fury.
    • 10.02.51 The USN ordered 300 FJ-2s.
    • 08.03.51 The USN ordered 3 XFJ-2 prototypes.
    • 27.12.51 FJ-2 prototype.
    • 18.04.52 The USN ordered 389 FJ-3s.
    • 03.07.53 FJ-3 prototype.
    • 11.12.53 FJ-3 production.
    • 16.10.53 The USN ordered 2 XFJ-4 prototypes.
    • 28.10.54 FJ-4 prototype.
    • 00.02.55 FJ-4 deliveries begin.
    • 12.12.56 FJ-4B the source doesn't say whether it was the prototype or first production aircraft.
  • De Havilland Sea Venom.
    • 19.04.51 Sea Venom FAW.20 prototype.
    • 27.03.53 Sea Venom FAW.20 production.
    • 21.05.54 Sea Venom FAW.21 prototype.
    • 22.04.54 Sea Venom FAW.21 production - yes the production aircraft flew before the prototype.
    • 01.10.56 Sea Venom FAW.22 production.
    • 27.10.56 London Order 6970 for the purchase of 39 Sea Venom FAW.53.
      • The date may be a typo, because.
    • 01.03.55 first delivery (to Boscombe Down).
      • And.
    • 18.01.56 last delivery (to RNAS Stretton).
    • 23.08.55 No. 808 Squadron reformed at RNAS Culdrose and initially equipped with Sea Venom FAW.20s.
    • 27.02.56 The Sea Venom was formally accepted by the RAN.
    • 29.02.56 Sea Venoms first embarked on HMAS Melbourne.

The RAN may want an aircraft with a better radar than the APG-30. Maybe they'd want a navalised F-86D/K/L Sabre with its APG-36 or 37 radar. However, according to the Wikipedia article only 25% of its parts were shared with the standard F-86 and had J47 engines. F-86D's wingspan was the same as the extended wingspan of the FJ-2 & 3 and the F-86K's wingspan was the same as the FJ-4 & 4Bs extended wingspan. So both could be given wings that folded to 22ft 6in and 27ft 6in respectively. The F-86D was 40ft 3in long, which was more than all marks of swept-wing Fury and was nearly the same length as a Skyhawk.

Or they could do a FJ Fury/F-86D hybrid which was the nose of the F-86D attached to a FJ Fury. The RAAF might like their Sabres to have all-weather capability too.

Ninja'd you discussed the radar in your message, including suggesting the above and I didn't notice. Sorry!

As for engines, according to Gunston, Commonwealth encountered a lot of problems when it redesigned the Sabre for the Avon and the result was according to the RAAF's Chief of the Air Staff "What we got at the end of it all was a fighter that was about as good as the F-86F, but three years later and costing twice as much. I'll tell you: we'll never go through that again".

Therefore, I recommend sticking to the J65 (Sapphire), which North American has already redesigned the Fury to take, which saves Commonwealth time and money, in addition (hopefully) to get a better performing aircraft.

The RAAF's Canberras can have Sapphires too. The Martin-built Canberras had J-65s. Furthermore, I thought that at leas one of the 8 Canberra B.1 & B.2 prototypes had Sapphires instead of Avons, but I was mistaken. However, one production Canberra B.2 (WV787) was built with Sapphires and it was completed in 1952 a year before the first GAF-built Canberra was completed.

A minimum of 208 Avon engines were built in Australia for the 48 GAF Canberras and 112 Commonwealth Sabres. ITTL the minimum would be 247 Sapphires built in Australia for 48 GAF Canberras and 151 Commonwealth Furies.

However, I think they'd be called the Sabre and Sea Sabre in Australian service to avoid confusion with the Hawker Sea Furies operated by the RN & RAN.

The change in engines would mean no standardisation when it was operating with the RAF & RNZAF Canberras in FEAF, but it would mean standardisation with the USAF's Martin B-57 Canberras when they were serving in Vietnam.

It weakens my case for building the Avon-Mirage III. Amongst my arguments in favour were standardisation with the RAAF's Canberras and Sabres, standardisation with several RAF aircraft in FEAF and it could be built on Commonwealth's already existing Avon production line.

Maybe Armstrong-Siddeley/Bristol-Siddeley would propose a Sapphire-Mirage II as a rival to RR's Avon-Mirage II ITTL.

Bum! I didn't notice that you wrote that Commonwealth would find it easier to redesign the Fury for the Avon than redesigning the Sabre for the Avon.

 

[Pioneer]

In which case NOMISYRRUC, you might appreciate this rendition by the very talented Chris Cooper (Coops213).

Regards
Pioneer

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In which case NOMISYRRUC, you might appreciate this rendition by the very talented Chris Cooper (Coops213).

Regards
Pioneer

Yes, I do. Was that a real design? And if it was, why didn't the RAN buy it?

 

[Rule of cool]

Something I'd like to see is the 1964-65 decision to equip the Melbourne with S2s and A4s being made instead of the decision to scrap fixed wing flying from the carrier. This would mean much less than 27 Wessex would be ordered and 14 S2Es and 10 A/TA4Cs ordered.

Such an order may change how the RAN used the Melbourne in Vietnam. She may have entered the Market Time AO during her contribution to Operation Hardihood, the establishment of 1 ATF in Phuoc Tuy. Further the 1966 and 67 USN requests for a war cruise, as an ASW asset on Yankee Station may have been accepted, perhaps with the proviso that the RAN DDG on station be assigned as a permanent escort alongside whatever else the RAN sent to escort her.

Giving the Melbourne even a bit of war service would drastically strengthen the case for considerable upgrades and her eventual replacement.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Giving the Melbourne even a bit of war service would drastically strengthen the case for considerable upgrades and her eventual replacement.

I know you don't like it due their extra personnel requirements, but Centaur becomes available after 1966 and Hermes in 1970. Both had 2 steam catapults that were more powerful that Melbourne's single catapult, larger hangars and larger flight decks.

 

[Rule of cool]

I know you don't like it due their extra personnel requirements, but Centaur becomes available after 1966 and Hermes in 1970. Both had 2 steam catapults that were more powerful that Melbourne's single catapult, larger hangars and larger flight decks.

That's the conventional wisdom, and I'm a pretty conventional thinker at heart. However, that same conventional wisdom saw Australia introduce conscription into the Regulars for overseas service for the first time and prioritse the infantry commitment to Vietnam rather than more capital intensive but manpower efficient options like Armour, medium artillery, helicopters, combat aircraft and warships. If it was given sufficient priority due to Melbourne's efforts in Vietnam, I'm sure the RAN could find the manpower to put ~1,800 men on Hermes.

 

[Pioneer]

Yes, I do. Was that a real design? And if it was, why didn't the RAN buy it?

No, sadly not a real design NOMISYRRUC.
Coops, was kind enough to creat this beautiful dipiction in support of a joint WhatIf Alternative Story on another forum.
Note that the armament is two 30mm ADEN cannons, two Aim-9D and two SARH Aim-9C's.

Regards
Pioneer