Cold Warriors: The Essex Class in the Cold War

[SSgtC]

Boeing B-47C, except with J-71s, not TF33.

Boeing YB-56/B-47C Stratojet

Sounds like it would have been a formidable bomber. Too bad it was canceled 5 years before the POD. Though maybe the Government Aircraft Factory or CAC can buy the plans from Boeing and do the job themselves should they elect to go that route

 

[_Del_]

I was trying to say that the jump in capability likely doesn't offset the increased difficulty in operating the aircraft. Or the expense of having to upgrade infrastructure to handle the much larger bomber. The Canberra was 55,000 pounds all up. The B-47 was 221,000 pounds all up. That's a massive jump in size. With all the other needs that Australia has to fill, I'm not sure the increased capability is enough of a jump to justify the costs.

All fair.
In regards to cost, and in the context of the V-bomber conversation, a brand new B-47E was considerably cheaper than a Vulcan or Victor. There's also slack in production and inventory there that never really existed with any of the V-bombers. Particularly if you're getting used models cheap or free, it's hard to imagine operational costs between the heavy bomber options offsetting that savings.
Seems like you could use the CAC produced Avons in place of the J47's much like they did for the Sabres, as well. Then the Sabres, Canberras, and B-47's would all share a common, locally produced engine.

But yes, it still represents a giant investment of resources, even if you get them cheap or free. Mostly, I was just surprised to see it being dismissed as a barely more than an upjumped Canberra.

I've got a soft spot for the Stratojet, with a family connection. I think it may be the most influential design on the jet age. People will argue the 707, but the 707's success was the result of the B-47 experience with those elements. I have a close family connection with the ol' bird, and had started half-working on a book as a project in my free time, but his passing and the appearance of Mark Natola's excellent book happened near simultaneously which put that idea to rest. I highly recommend Mark's book.

I also feel like I'm dragging the thread sideways instead of just enjoying the story! Do carry on!

 

[isayyo2]

I was trying to say that the jump in capability likely doesn't offset the increased difficulty in operating the aircraft. Or the expense of having to upgrade infrastructure to handle the much larger bomber. The Canberra was 55,000 pounds all up. The B-47 was 221,000 pounds all up. That's a massive jump in size. With all the other needs that Australia has to fill, I'm not sure the increased capability is enough of a jump to justify the costs.

All fair.
In regards to cost, and in the context of the V-bomber conversation, a brand new B-47E was considerably cheaper than a Vulcan or Victor. There's also slack in production and inventory there that never really existed with any of the V-bombers. Particularly if you're getting used models cheap or free, it's hard to imagine operational costs between the heavy bomber options offsetting that savings.
Seems like you could use the CAC produced Avons in place of the J47's much like they did for the Sabres, as well. Then the Sabres, Canberras, and B-47's would all share a common, locally produced engine.

But yes, it still represents a giant investment of resources, even if you get them cheap or free. Mostly, I was just surprised to see it being dismissed as a barely more than an upjumped Canberra.

I've got a soft spot for the Stratojet, with a family connection. I think it may be the most influential design on the jet age. People will argue the 707, but the 707's success was the result of the B-47 experience with those elements. I have a close family connection with the ol' bird, and had started half-working on a book as a project in my free time, but his passing and the appearance of Mark Natola's excellent book happened near simultaneously which put that idea to rest. I highly recommend Mark's book.

I also feel like I'm dragging the thread sideways instead of just enjoying the story! Do carry on!

Avon Mirage III's and Stratojets would be neat!

 

[GTX]

If one looks at the real world, which this alternate history story is largely based upon, you will see that the RAAF did indeed consider both HP Victors and Avro Vulcans in the '50s. Indeed, Royal Australian Air Force Air staff requirement (Operational Requirement/Air 36) anticipated an in-service date of 1959 for a fleet of 39 aircraft. A team led by Air Vice-Marshal Murdoch recommended that the RAAF should acquire either the Avro Vulcan or the Hadley Page Victor bomber from the UK. However, this was tied very much to the ADF also acquiring/developing nuclear weapons capability and when this ceased, for multiple reasons, the requirement for heavy bombers also went away.

Later on, in 1963, one might also note that a team led by Air Marshal Sir Valston Hancock, recommended the North American RA-5C Vigilante to meet the need for the strike/reconnaissance force. Obviously, this did not go ahead in the real world. However, one could possibly see the developments of this alternate history playing a role in changing things...

For instance, developments in Indonesia could trigger the RAAF/Australian Govt to revisit the RAAF's bomber capability question in late '57/58 and to also reconsider the nuclear option. By then one might however consider the V-bomber options less appropriate. Add in the twist of having CAC, who were already very aligned with North American, make an pitch around the newest NA product the Vigilante (first flight was August 1958) and possibly even convincing the RAAF to order off the drawing board with an 'Australianised' version produced locally. Now take it a step further and perhaps the US covertly also offers Australia access to nuclear weapons for these without the need to locally develop the weapons...

End result - something like below entering service early 1960s:

 

[GTX]

Of course, a RAAF Vigilante further strengthens the likelihood of a RAAF F-104 instead of the Mirage III since the J79 commonality is already there. Indeed, it has been reported that the F-104 was the initial preference for the RAAF as a Sabre replacement. Thus one also could see this accelerated too with the following appearing in the early '60s as well from the GAF:

 

[SSgtC]

I was trying to say that the jump in capability likely doesn't offset the increased difficulty in operating the aircraft. Or the expense of having to upgrade infrastructure to handle the much larger bomber. The Canberra was 55,000 pounds all up. The B-47 was 221,000 pounds all up. That's a massive jump in size. With all the other needs that Australia has to fill, I'm not sure the increased capability is enough of a jump to justify the costs.

All fair.
In regards to cost, and in the context of the V-bomber conversation, a brand new B-47E was considerably cheaper than a Vulcan or Victor. There's also slack in production and inventory there that never really existed with any of the V-bombers. Particularly if you're getting used models cheap or free, it's hard to imagine operational costs between the heavy bomber options offsetting that savings.
Seems like you could use the CAC produced Avons in place of the J47's much like they did for the Sabres, as well. Then the Sabres, Canberras, and B-47's would all share a common, locally produced engine.

But yes, it still represents a giant investment of resources, even if you get them cheap or free. Mostly, I was just surprised to see it being dismissed as a barely more than an upjumped Canberra.

I've got a soft spot for the Stratojet, with a family connection. I think it may be the most influential design on the jet age. People will argue the 707, but the 707's success was the result of the B-47 experience with those elements. I have a close family connection with the ol' bird, and had started half-working on a book as a project in my free time, but his passing and the appearance of Mark Natola's excellent book happened near simultaneously which put that idea to rest. I highly recommend Mark's book.

I also feel like I'm dragging the thread sideways instead of just enjoying the story! Do carry on!

So, just to expand my thinking a little bit. In TTL, Australia knows that Indonesia is upgrading their fighter force. They know that the Canberra can only give them about 550 MPH going flat out. Indonesia's new front line fighter, the MiG-17 can do 710 MPH. Hell, Indonesia's new trainer, the MiG-15UTI can do 680 MPH. So they know that the Canberra is a dead plane flying without fighter escort over Indonesia. (Or rather they'll realize it once they read a few intelligence reports.) Even up at 40,000+ feet, the Fresco can still roll right along at 630 MPH. (Data per SAC sheet maintained by CIA). So the Canberra is screwed.

So that brings us to alternatives. The B-47 maxes out at 607 MPH. But that's clean with the engines firewalled. Per the SAC sheet, the B-47 would be doing about 535 MPH on its bomb run over the target. While that was still undoubtedly faster than the Canberra over the target, it's still over 100 MPH slower than the Fresco. So it's better than what they have, but it's not really any more survivable.

And the situation will only get worse if Indonesia buys MiG-19s or -21s. And should Indonesia get SAM systems...

 

[_Del_]

So it's better than what they have, but it's not really any more survivable.

There aren't any survivable heavy bombers in the 50's. MiG-17's racked up later kills against even Phantoms and Thuds. Speed and altitude help complicate interception, but there's no "safe" bomber.

And again, I'm not saying Australia should buy or operate them. I think the cost is a substantial investment, and I'm not sure conventional strategic bombing was a wise use of that investment. But if Australia is looking to employ long-range bombers, I'm not sure survivability is a tipping point for any of the modern bombers.

 

[SSgtC]

So it's better than what they have, but it's not really any more survivable.

There aren't any survivable heavy bombers in the 50's. MiG-17's racked up later kills against even Phantoms and Thuds. Speed and altitude help complicate interception, but there's no "safe" bomber.

And again, I'm not saying Australia should buy or operate them. I think the cost is a substantial investment, and I'm not sure conventional strategic bombing was a wise use of that investment. But if Australia is looking to employ long-range bombers, I'm not sure survivability is a tipping point for any of the modern bombers.

Trust me, I appreciate people advocating for different positions or equipment. It makes me reevaluate the decisions I've made to ensure they're the most realistic choice available. And in some cases, I find out options that I either forgot about or never knew existed. And having people Devil's Advocate things helps me refine the arguments I use in story.

 

[Volkodav]

. While a new fighter for the Fleet Air Arm would likely also mean buying a new aircraft carrier, despite Melbourne having only entered service two years earlier. Further meetings would need to be held to map out a course for the next several years.

A Second aircraft carrier maybe.

No. Australia doesn't have the manpower to operate two carriers at the same time plus their escorts. As soon as they got Melbourne they transferred Sydney to a training carrier and operated her with reduced manpower until they placed her in reserve before using her as a troop transport in Vietnam, again with reduced manpower. Particularly since a more capable carrier will require more crew than Melbourne will.

Actually Australia operated two carriers during the Korean War, Sydney deploying while Vengeance (on loan pending the delivery of Melbourne) remained in Australia. The original plan had been for two straight deck Majestics, this changed to taking delivery of one straight deck while the second was modernised, with the first being modernised after the second was delivered, with Vengeance remaining until both modernised carriers were in service. The decision not to complete this plan was political and manpower was the excuse.

 

[SSgtC]

. While a new fighter for the Fleet Air Arm would likely also mean buying a new aircraft carrier, despite Melbourne having only entered service two years earlier. Further meetings would need to be held to map out a course for the next several years.

A Second aircraft carrier maybe.

No. Australia doesn't have the manpower to operate two carriers at the same time plus their escorts. As soon as they got Melbourne they transferred Sydney to a training carrier and operated her with reduced manpower until they placed her in reserve before using her as a troop transport in Vietnam, again with reduced manpower. Particularly since a more capable carrier will require more crew than Melbourne will.

Actually Australia operated two carriers during the Korean War, Sydney deploying while Vengeance (on loan pending the delivery of Melbourne) remained in Australia. The original plan had been for two straight deck Majestics, this changed to taking delivery of one straight deck while the second was modernised, with the first being modernised after the second was delivered, with Vengeance remaining until both modernised carriers were in service. The decision not to complete this plan was political and manpower was the excuse.

Keep in mind, the two carriers they operated required relatively low levels of manpower. But when you add in the escorts for two carrier strike groups plus other missions (humanitarian, ASW, convoy escort, etc) the manpower problem becomes very real. Also, should the RAN elect to buy a new carrier, it will out of necessity be a larger carrier with a larger air wing. Melbourne only needed 1,350 to operate in her role as a CVS (in not sure what her complement was a CVA but it was likely under 2,000). To buy a ship like an Essex class means the RAN needs about 3,000 men to crew her and man her air wing. So manpower is a legitimate concern.

 

[Volkodav]

My bet is on Vigilante or V-bombers,

Bucc and Vig even the Thud and Phantom are in advanced development, and seem like good fits depending on budgets. Ignoring costs, Vulcans would be fantastic. Mirage IV is further out, the specs were just written.

Hunters or the Gnat, are possible budget conscious choices to augment the Sabres. Super Sabres, Nings, Drakens, Starfighters, Mirage and Mystares, etc. Are possible upgrades. Phantoms are getting close to flying, but more pricey.

Wasn't Murdoch's post-US and -UK tour's answer in the mid-50's for Vulcan's and Starfighters? Obviously, neither type entered service with the RAAF. There are other cost and political factors at play in this scenario, but it seems unlikely that there would be much different suggestions on the "wish list". Both of these are more capable than most contemporary alternatives, though more expensive.

I wonder if you couldn't get the B-47's that were later offered in the sixties any earlier. And if you did, ... I wonder if you couldn't give CAC work re-engining them with their Avons. I don't know what a used B-47 costs, but I'm sure it's substantially cheaper than a brand new Vulcan!

RAAF is still flying Lincolns over Malaya in addition to the Canberras. I wonder if you couldn't get B-50's (including KB's) at significant discount, as well. Not sure the expenditure of effort would be worth the return.

Australia looked at building the B-29 instead of the Lincoln but it was deemed too complex and difficult. I have wondered if perhaps Australia could have skipped the Lincoln and built the Shackleton instead, retaining the B-24 until the Canberra arrived, or built the Shack and B-29.

 

[_Del_]

Add in the twist of having CAC, who were already very aligned with North American, make an pitch around the newest NA product the Vigilante (first flight was August 1958) and possibly even convincing the RAAF to order off the drawing board with an 'Australianised' version produced locally

Not sure they buy enough Vig's to make local production worth it, but... If they went with the Vig, there were half-a-dozen other countries license building J79's... If Australia decides in a J79 instead of building Atars under license, you've opened up possibilities for either the Mirages (also were locally built in the real world, and perhaps becomes an Australian Kfir) or the Starfighter (never acquired by Australia, but most were built overseas, so I don't see any barriers to CAC licensing).
Just thinking "aloud", as it were.

ETA: How could I forget the Australian Phantoms which were also J79 powered!?

 

[SSgtC]

Not sure they buy enough Vig's to make local production worth it, but... If they went with the Vig, there were half-a-dozen other countries license building J79's... If Australia decides in a J79 instead of building Atars under license, you've opened up possibilities for either the Mirages (also were locally built in the real world, and perhaps becomes an Australian Kfir) or the Starfighter (never acquired by Australia, but most were built overseas, so I don't see any barriers to CAC licensing).
Just thinking "aloud", as it were.

Maybe not the whole aircraft, but perhaps an arrangement similar to the one with Dassault where items that will wear out and require regular replacement are locally built, with the rest sent to Australia in kit form for final assembly? So things like engines, hydraulics, landing gear, flaps, elevators, some of the avionics. Might be a better deal than buying completed aircraft. It keeps workers in both countries busy and let's the RAAF have a secure supply of spare parts going forward.

 

[Volkodav]

. While a new fighter for the Fleet Air Arm would likely also mean buying a new aircraft carrier, despite Melbourne having only entered service two years earlier. Further meetings would need to be held to map out a course for the next several years.

A Second aircraft carrier maybe.

No. Australia doesn't have the manpower to operate two carriers at the same time plus their escorts. As soon as they got Melbourne they transferred Sydney to a training carrier and operated her with reduced manpower until they placed her in reserve before using her as a troop transport in Vietnam, again with reduced manpower. Particularly since a more capable carrier will require more crew than Melbourne will.

Actually Australia operated two carriers during the Korean War, Sydney deploying while Vengeance (on loan pending the delivery of Melbourne) remained in Australia. The original plan had been for two straight deck Majestics, this changed to taking delivery of one straight deck while the second was modernised, with the first being modernised after the second was delivered, with Vengeance remaining until both modernised carriers were in service. The decision not to complete this plan was political and manpower was the excuse.

Keep in mind, the two carriers they operated required relatively low levels of manpower. But when you add in the escorts for two carrier strike groups plus other missions (humanitarian, ASW, convoy escort, etc) the manpower problem becomes very real. Also, should the RAN elect to buy a new carrier, it will out of necessity be a larger carrier with a larger air wing. Melbourne only needed 1,350 to operate in her role as a CVS (in not sure what her complement was a CVA but it was likely under 2,000). To buy a ship like an Essex class means the RAN needs about 3,000 men to crew her and man her air wing. So manpower is a legitimate concern.

Again a political issue, the government of the day decided to cut defence substantially in the mid to late 50s based in part on ANZUS and basically off shoring our defence obligations onto a powerful ally. This was a return to the pre war policies, no surprise really as Australias PM from 1949 to 1966 was the same bloke we had from 1939 to 1941 (when his idea of being a wartime PM was to relocate to the UK and serve in Churchills War Cabinet, even envisioning himself as a replacement for Churchill), a PM who's actual record as opposed to later day reimagining's, was effectively anti military and anti Australian self sufficiency.

 

[Archibald]

A J79 Mirage is certainly a hot rod but that engine is a tight fit, as shown by the Kfir. Main issue was overheating: to the point a small intake was needed at the base of the tail fin.

Note that Kfir was created by unexperienced Israelis; if Dassault is involved, that ATL "aussie Kfir" might look different.

There was also a Boeing Mirage III-W (Wichita) to tackle Northrop F-5.

 

[starviking]

Again a political issue, the government of the day decided to cut defence substantially in the mid to late 50s based in part on ANZUS and basically off shoring our defence obligations onto a powerful ally. This was a return to the pre war policies, no surprise really as Australias PM from 1949 to 1966 was the same bloke we had from 1939 to 1941 (when his idea of being a wartime PM was to relocate to the UK and serve in Churchills War Cabinet, even envisioning himself as a replacement for Churchill), a PM who's actual record as opposed to later day reimagining's, was effectively anti military and anti Australian self sufficiency.

This brings to mind, and my mind may be foggy, plans early in the CVA-01 programme to have one of the carriers (03 or 04) based in Australia, with significant Auzzie involvement in running the ship.

Perhaps the UK will propose something similar with her current carrier fleet, though I don't know how easy training RAN personnel up would be as the fleet is a mixed-bag. Perhaps there are enough similar systems across the fleet that RAN people can slot into them easily?

And here's something perhaps a bit farther out: HMS Centaur is being modernised as we speak, in this timeline. Could the RN be forced to look at upgrades to Albion and/or Bulwark to bring them up to the new Centaur standard? They then would be able to take Sea Vixen, and perhaps more interestingly SR177, which has not been cancelled yet.

 

[starviking]

For instance, developments in Indonesia could trigger the RAAF/Australian Govt to revisit the RAAF's bomber capability question in late '57/58 and to also reconsider the nuclear option. By then one might however consider the V-bomber options less appropriate. Add in the twist of having CAC, who were already very aligned with North American, make an pitch around the newest NA product the Vigilante (first flight was August 1958) and possibly even convincing the RAAF to order off the drawing board with an 'Australianised' version produced locally. Now take it a step further and perhaps the US covertly also offers Australia access to nuclear weapons for these without the need to locally develop the weapons...

Talking of nukes, we could see a "Commonwealth Nuclear Deterrent" getting proposed by some once the Indonesians really get going.

 

[Volkodav]

Again a political issue, the government of the day decided to cut defence substantially in the mid to late 50s based in part on ANZUS and basically off shoring our defence obligations onto a powerful ally. This was a return to the pre war policies, no surprise really as Australias PM from 1949 to 1966 was the same bloke we had from 1939 to 1941 (when his idea of being a wartime PM was to relocate to the UK and serve in Churchills War Cabinet, even envisioning himself as a replacement for Churchill), a PM who's actual record as opposed to later day reimagining's, was effectively anti military and anti Australian self sufficiency.

This brings to mind, and my mind may be foggy, plans early in the CVA-01 programme to have one of the carriers (03 or 04) based in Australia, with significant Auzzie involvement in running the ship.

Perhaps the UK will propose something similar with her current carrier fleet, though I don't know how easy training RAN personnel up would be as the fleet is a mixed-bag. Perhaps there are enough similar systems across the fleet that RAN people can slot into them easily?

And here's something perhaps a bit farther out: HMS Centaur is being modernised as we speak, in this timeline. Could the RN be forced to look at upgrades to Albion and/or Bulwark to bring them up to the new Centaur standard? They then would be able to take Sea Vixen, and perhaps more interestingly SR177, which has not been cancelled yet.

The missed opportunity was Implacable and Indefatigable, both disposed of before this scenario ramped up. There was talk of them being commissioned into the RAN during WWII to serve with the BPF, Aussie crew and RN (likely mostly NZ) FAA component (many RAN FAA aircrew post war were ex RN FAA Kiwis from the Empire Air Training Scheme).

They could have severed quite well to the mid 50s with minimal mods and then been upgraded in the late 50s with angled decks. Fury, Tiger and other USN types were actually low enough to fit in the 14' hangars, all that would have been needed to make them fit to serve through the 60s is angled deck, and steam cats, plus of course other systems that any ship would have needed upgrades for any way.

Like I said, the ships were disposed of before this scenario and there would have had to be a major change in thinking in Canberra for the to have been accepted in WWII.

 

[Archibald]

Except these ships has zero update potential unless going the full (horrible) Victorious way. We discussed the matter ad nauseam (a very severe bout of nausea)
The hangar ceilings are too low and, in order to enlarge the hangars, the ship has to be cut and razed and essentially turned into a new ship, except for the bell of course.
The RAAN was well advised not to take those lemons.

 

[starviking]

Except these ships has zero update potential unless going the full (horrible) Victorious way. We discussed the matter ad nauseam (a very severe bout of nausea)
The hangar ceilings are too low and, in order to enlarge the hangars, the ship has to be cut and razed and essentially turned into a new ship, except for the bell of course.
The RAAN was well advised not to take those lemons.

IIRC, the Victorious debacle involved razing the ship, rebuilding it, then finding out that the boilers need to be changed, so down we go again. Things probably look better without the need to make repeated and extensive changes to your build plan.

 

[Archibald]

Main problem when upgrading (or trying to update) the Illustrious-Implacable-Indomitable class of six ships, was to pick the RIGHT one (or two)
- two, Illustrious included, had been severely crippled in 1941 by the Germans and 1945 by kamikazes, and were badly worn out
- some others had the wrong hangar size or shape. Basically, out of the six, there were three different hangar types.

And instead of being 2-2-2, those different carriers with different hangars were rather kind of 3-1-2.

So between the crippled and those with the "wrong" hangar, it would be pretty hard, if not impossible, to get a) two similar upgrade resulting in b) two identical ships.

A true nightmare.

That's the big difference with the Essex, that were pretty standard / identical at the beginning at least, except for the short and long hulls.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illustrious-class_aircraft_carrier (3 - Illustrious and Formidable severely crippled)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Indomitable_(92) (1 - wrong hangar)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implacable-class_aircraft_carrier (2)

 

[Volkodav]

Except these ships has zero update potential unless going the full (horrible) Victorious way. We discussed the matter ad nauseam (a very severe bout of nausea)
The hangar ceilings are too low and, in order to enlarge the hangars, the ship has to be cut and razed and essentially turned into a new ship, except for the bell of course.
The RAAN was well advised not to take those lemons.

That's why I mentioned the fact multiple USN aircraft types could fit in a 14' high hangar. Steam cats and an angled deck with the lower half hangar converted to other purposes and you have a far from perfect, but good enough carrier to see out the 60s. A full rebuild, based on the experience of the Victorious modernisation could have resulted in a pair of ships fit to serve into the early 80s.

Totally derailing the topic now so I will stop.

 

[Archibald]

I'm guilty of derailing it too. Ceasefire, white flag. Back to topic.

 

[GTX]

Not sure they buy enough Vig's to make local production worth it ... If Australia decides in a J79 instead of building Atars under license, you've opened up possibilities for either the Mirages (also were locally built in the real world, and perhaps becomes an Australian Kfir) or the Starfighter ... Australian Phantoms

When I say '"an Australianised' version produced locally", I would be largely talking minimal mods (perhaps some removal of dedicated Naval equipment, greater emphasis on dual strike/recon earlier and greater emphasis on conventional weapons) and mostly assembled from kits.

I doubt you would see an 'Australian Kfir'. If the J79 had any influence, you would probably see the scenario I suggested of driving the RAAF more towards the J-104 than a J79 powered Mirage III.

Re the Phantom, I did think of it but again, if the Vigilante were selected it would largely fill the role the F-4 was looked at/briefly entered service for - in fact, back in the early '60s in the real timeline, the F-4C was considered alongside the Vigilante for the Canberra replacement. but if the Vigilante were selected, you wouldn't expect the F-4 as well.

 

[_Del_]

If the Vig replaces (more likely supplements, to be honest, as I can't imagine one-for-one replacement) the Canberra, and the F-104 (which was on Murdoch's wishlist and was licensed produced by several countries) is selected to replace the Sabres, I think there's still a later opening for the F-4 as a multirole high in the high/low mix. RAAF wanted to keep the ones they had borrowed, I believe, but were overruled by the beancounters.

 

[H_K]

Of course, a RAAF Vigilante further strengthens the likelihood of a RAAF F-104 instead of the Mirage III since the J79 commonality is already there. Indeed, it has been reported that the F-104 was the initial preference for the RAAF as a Sabre replacement.

The F-104A/C was favored in 1957 (it appears to have been the only candidate), but the RAAF soon got cold feet because it was an interceptor only. It was then decided to look more broadly and the F-104G, Mirage IIIC, Draken, F-105, F-5 and Lightning were all evaluated.

The Mirage III trounced the F-104G in the final head-to-head evaluation. It was 20% cheaper, climbed faster, flew higher and farther, had better supersonic turn & acceleration performance, was easier to service and to fly, was a better gun platform... much of this was corroborated by RAF and Belgian pilots who had evaluated both types and who gave the Mirage top marks (one RAF pilot even stated that the Mirage was a better ground attack platform than the beloved Hunter!).

The clincher, apparently, was that the F-104 was unsuited to South East Asian runways, with long take off runs and high pressure tires...

Lots of info on the RAAF’s very thorough evaluation available in the Australian archives here:

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

 

[starviking]

The F-104A/C was favored in 1957 (it appears to have been the only candidate), but the RAAF soon got cold feet because it was an interceptor only. It was then decided to look more broadly and the F-104G, Mirage IIIC, Draken, F-105, F-5 and Lightning were all evaluated.

Of course, at this stage in development, late 57, all of these planes are not in service, and are unknown quantities.

For immediate, or near-immediate use the RAF's former MDAP Canadair Sabres still have about 78 available for transfer, with the remainder of the 302-ship order already serving Italy and Yugoslavia at this time.

Hunters could be in play, and the support for the Avon engine is already there in Australia.

 

[H_K]

Yes, the others were unknown quantities for the initial F-104 evaluation in 1957. But the competitive evaluation between all types was done in 1960, by which time many foreign pilots had flown both.

Another interesting footnote... the Australian Prime Minister’s Secretary (a very important role) seems to have been so surprised by the Mirage recommendation that he wrote:

“The list of [the Mirage III’s] superiorities is so devastating as almost to make one suspicious. If this is a true balance sheet of the two aircraft, why have we had to think so long before coming to the conclusion? Why haven’t rather more countries preferred the Mirage over the F-104G?

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

 

[SSgtC]

There's also the F8U-1 that just entered service with the -2 and -3 under development. Though they are both a pure fighter with limited ground attack capability. Though there was a proposal from Vought to mount a (i think) 2,000 pound bomb in a semi submerged well between the main landing gear on the Super Crusader. And adding wing hardpoints with triple ejector racks gives it at least a decent ground attack capability. Obviously, not nearly at the same level as the Thud or the in development Phantom, but still pretty good. And it has the range on internal fuel to conduct bomber escort, something a lot of the proposals lack.

And of course the Phantom is also being developed. While not nearly the dogfighter the Super Crusader is, it's a more capable multirole aircraft, just as able to put warheads on foreheads as it is to shoot down aircraft.

The RAAF could also go with a high/low mix, with a handful of Phantoms for the high end and Mirage III, Viggen or Starfighter in the low end. A lot will depend on quickly they decide they need fighters. If they need something now, then it's either going to F-104, F-105, F11F, F8U or maybe Mirage III.

 

[Archibald]

Why haven’t rather more countries preferred the Mirage over the F-104G?

Bri.be.ries, dear. Although, make no mistake: Dassault was hardly a saint, Switzerland,cough, Belgium cough,cough,cough, coooooough...

 

[SSgtC]

Why haven’t rather more countries preferred the Mirage over the F-104G?

Bri.be.ries, dear. Although, make no mistake: Dassault was hardly a saint, Switzerland,cough, Belgium cough,cough,cough, coooooough...

Yup. Remove the bribes and the F-104 doesn't see nearly the sales it did in OTL. And the Super Tiger actually enters production with Germany and Japan both buying it

 

[Volkodav]

Yes, the others were unknown quantities for the initial F-104 evaluation in 1957. But the competitive evaluation between all types was done in 1960, by which time many foreign pilots had flown both.

Another interesting footnote... the Australian Prime Minister’s Secretary (a very important role) seems to have been so surprised by the Mirage recommendation that he wrote:

“The list of [the Mirage III’s] superiorities is so devastating as almost to make one suspicious. If this is a true balance sheet of the two aircraft, why have we had to think so long before coming to the conclusion? Why haven’t rather more countries preferred the Mirage over the F-104G?

View Digital Image

recordsearch.naa.gov.au

I discovered, much to my discomfort, that the unbiased advice, delivered without fear or favour, by Australia's senior public servants has never been unbiased. It is disturbing how often the majority of experts are on the same page then the final decision comes out completely different. Only when cabinet papers become available decades later do the summaries and opinion drafted by Public Service policy types come to light and explain how the unexpected decision came about.

My short tenure in the APS provided me with some insight to just how biased many of the decision makers are. I'm not suggesting a conspiracy, but rather an alarming prevalence of Dunning Kruger with individuals in pivotal, if not traditionally powerful positions, convinced that their unsupported opinion is the "one truth", and selling their opinion as facts to those they are advising.

 

[GTX]

Without a doubt the Mirage III was the best decision in OTL. However when one is talking about what-ifs such as the basis for this thread, things can change. If the Australian Govt felt threatened in late 1957, then perhaps a single squadron buy (or lease) alongside the Vigilante might have been considered, if only as a stop gap solution. Even a LM 'sponsored' deal might have occurred.

Of course, once in service, it becomes a different story as its got an incumbent advantage.

 

[GTX]

I think there's still a later opening for the F-4 as a multirole high in the high/low mix. RAAF wanted to keep the ones they had borrowed, I believe, but were overruled by the beancounters.

Except the RAAF has never really gone for the high/low mix approach with fighters.nn Since the EO WWII, our mix has tended to be bomber/fighter (though sometimes there is an overlap).

The RAAF F-4E lease was a bomber driven requirement. To have kept them in service longer whilst also bringing on the preferred F-111 would have caused manpower problems for the RAAF. Even replacing some Mirage IIIs with the F-4Es would have been difficult and costly. If nothing else, you would have seen the RAAF operating 3 fast jets all with different engines and associated.

 

[_Del_]

Well, this Phantom lease is all more than a decade away, post F-111 order and delay in any event. A Vig buy fairly well precludes the Varks.

But I think hypothetical J79 production for Vigs (and the F-104?) opens a window for later Phantoms. Particularly if the Starfighter (or Mirage) limitations become keenly felt, and the Cold War remains warm in the region.

 

[Volkodav]

I think there's still a later opening for the F-4 as a multirole high in the high/low mix. RAAF wanted to keep the ones they had borrowed, I believe, but were overruled by the beancounters.

Except the RAAF has never really gone for the high/low mix approach with fighters.nn Since the EO WWII, our mix has tended to be bomber/fighter (though sometimes there is an overlap).

The RAAF F-4E lease was a bomber driven requirement. To have kept them in service longer whilst also bringing on the preferred F-111 would have caused manpower problems for the RAAF. Even replacing some Mirage IIIs with the F-4Es would have been difficult and costly. If nothing else, you would have seen the RAAF operating 3 fast jets all with different engines and associated.

The irony is within several years of the Phantoms being returned to the US one Mirage SQN had been disbanded (supposedly to create a pool of airframes to extend the types service life) and the last Canberra SQN retired. Not saying it wouldn't have been expensive to keep the Phantoms, but it does show that one of the reasons for not keeping them, i.e. the need to disband one of the Mirage SQNs to free up manpower was pure political spin.

Mind you this is the same era when the replacement carrier was opposed because the Sea Harrier was so demonstrably inferior to the F-5 and A-4, and using the money to replace the RAAFs ten P-3Bs with ten P-3Cs (supplementing the ten already in service) would deliver so much more capability and virtually make Australia a region super power! My apologies for the hyperbola but reading cabinet papers is sometimes like watching an episode of "Yes Minister". The facts don't matter, only the agenda matters and anything we lie about will remain secret until after we are dead.

 

[Volkodav]

I think there's still a later opening for the F-4 as a multirole high in the high/low mix. RAAF wanted to keep the ones they had borrowed, I believe, but were overruled by the beancounters.

Except the RAAF has never really gone for the high/low mix approach with fighters.nn Since the EO WWII, our mix has tended to be bomber/fighter (though sometimes there is an overlap).

The RAAF F-4E lease was a bomber driven requirement. To have kept them in service longer whilst also bringing on the preferred F-111 would have caused manpower problems for the RAAF. Even replacing some Mirage IIIs with the F-4Es would have been difficult and costly. If nothing else, you would have seen the RAAF operating 3 fast jets all with different engines and associated.

Didn't Mcair offer Australia an ATAR power Phantom to provide engine commonality with the Mirage III? Just imaging if Australia had gone the Avon Mirage, a potential Avon Phantom.

 

[Archibald]

Model 98DX

Phantom with Royal Australian Air Force

www.joebaugher.com

The Atar was much less sophisticated and a little less powerful (7200 kgp for the 9K50) than J79. One of the few advantages it had - much less heat (think Kfir & Mirage V in reverse). Perhaps a little smaller and lighter, not sure.

 

[SSgtC]

November 6, 1957
Sulawesi, Indonesia

Loyal units of the Indonesian Army launch an attack on the Permesta rebels with heavy support provided by the Indonesian Air Force flying B-25 Mitchel and Ilyushin Il-28 bombers, P-51 Mustang and MiG-17 fighters. In a coordinated assault, the Army rolls over the main Permesta base, scattering the rebels into the jungle.

In the sky above Sulawesi, the first Indonesian pilots to take the Shenyang F-5 into battle engage the CIA supplied rebel P-47s and A-20s. It is a slaughter as the WWII veteran airframes are bounced by the far superior Chinese supplied aircraft. In one notable example, Captain Saleh Basarah shot down three P-47s and one A-20 on a single mission. He was the first Indonesian pilot to convert to jet aircraft and the first to qualify on the F-5. He also became the first Indonesian Air Force Officer to score an air-to-air kill. Though Indonesia was still in the process of standing up their F-5 force, the decision had been made to commit those pilots and aircraft deemed ready for operations by their training officers as a display of strength and resolve.

 

[SSgtC]

November 7th, 1957
Sumatra, Indonesia

In a repeat of the events on Sulawesi the day before, the Indonesian armed forces launched an attack on rebel forces on Sumatra. Unlike the previous day, the rebels are prepared and waiting the Army. Though ultimately futile, they make the loyal units pay a high price in blood for their victory.

The surviving officers and men of the rebels, having run out of ammunition, surrender to the Army in the late evening. Though the Permesta rebellion was far from over, organized resistance to the rule of President Sukarno on Sumatra and Sulawesi had ceased.