Sukarno stays in power - what would Asutralia do?

[Dilandu]

Okay, about Terrier/SM-1ER vs Tartar/SM-2MR.

I assumed that the attack would be conducted by Tu-16K bombers, with two KSR-2 missiles each (NATO AS-5 Kelt). The missiles would be launched from 100+ km standoff distance, on transsonic speed about 1 Mach.

1) The Mk-10 GMLS (Terrier one) armed with RIM-67A SM-1ER missiles (65 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missiles close to 70 km. It got time for about seven 2-missile salvos (30 second reloads), before KSR-2 would be too close to be engaged. Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, the six missiles could reasonably be shot down.

2) The Mk-26 GMLS (Tartar one) armed with RIM-66B SM-1MR missiles (45 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missile close to 50 km. It got time for about fifteen 2-missile salvos (10 second reload), before KSR-2 would be too close to be engaged. Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, about thirteen missiles could be reasonably shot down.

3) The two Mk-13 GMLS (Tartar ones) armed with RIM-66B SM-1MR missiles (45 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missile close to 50 km. It got time for about twelve 1-missile shots each (13 second reload). Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, about eleven missiles could be reasonably shot down.

So I still think that Tartar is a much better solution. Even the crumblesome configuration of two Mk-13 launchers produces twice as many hits as Mk-10 Terrier GMLS.

 

[Rule of cool]

The RAAF F111s entered service in 1973 and in 1980 they bought 4 x-USAF F111As as attrition replacements. Given the F111F was still in production in 1976 what are the chances that the RAAF buys a 3rd sqn of F111s plus a few attrition spares once ours are sorted?

 

[Archibald]

And if the RAAN buy Mirage G3M (australian pilots loved the Mirage G prototype, in 1969) then you have commonality with its TF306F.

 

[Lascaris]

Okay, about Terrier/SM-1ER vs Tartar/SM-2MR.

I assumed that the attack would be conducted by Tu-16K bombers, with two KSR-2 missiles each (NATO AS-5 Kelt). The missiles would be launched from 100+ km standoff distance, on transsonic speed about 1 Mach.

1) The Mk-10 GMLS (Terrier one) armed with RIM-67A SM-1ER missiles (65 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missiles close to 70 km. It got time for about seven 2-missile salvos (30 second reloads), before KSR-2 would be too close to be engaged. Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, the six missiles could reasonably be shot down.

2) The Mk-26 GMLS (Tartar one) armed with RIM-66B SM-1MR missiles (45 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missile close to 50 km. It got time for about fifteen 2-missile salvos (10 second reload), before KSR-2 would be too close to be engaged. Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, about thirteen missiles could be reasonably shot down.

3) The two Mk-13 GMLS (Tartar ones) armed with RIM-66B SM-1MR missiles (45 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missile close to 50 km. It got time for about twelve 1-missile shots each (13 second reload). Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, about eleven missiles could be reasonably shot down.

So I still think that Tartar is a much better solution. Even the crumblesome configuration of two Mk-13 launchers produces twice as many hits as Mk-10 Terrier GMLS.

The missiles are not fire and forget. How many missiles could be actually directed simultaneously?

 

[Dilandu]

The missiles are not fire and forget. How many missiles could be actually directed simultaneously?

Technically any number - they are semi-active radar homing missiles, so any number of them could home on the target, illuminated by fire control radar. Both Terrier and Tartar fire control system could work with two illumination radars per single launcher. I.e. two targets could be engaged simultaneously by as many missiles as launchers could handle.

The limitation is, that SM-1 missiles required the target to be constantly illuminated. So as long as missiles are flying, the radar can't switch to other target. That's why I decided to use two-missiles-per-target scheme; while it is possible to launch each missile against separate targets (thus engaging two simultaneously) it won't actually gave big advantage in terms of time - and the kill probability would drop to 0,6-0,7, if any target is engaged only by single missile.

 

[Rule of cool]

The missiles are not fire and forget. How many missiles could be actually directed simultaneously?

A Perth class has 2 fire control channels so can illuminate 2 targets simultaneously, however some ships can use their gun fire control radar as a 3rd missile illumination channel. A CBG centred on Melbourne with 2 Perths as escorts could handle 4-6 incoming aircraft/missiles simultaneously.

The real question is if such an Attack would occur in the first place.

 

[Rule of cool]

A few other things that might happen if Sukarno stayed in power beyond 1966 and remained friendly with the Soviets and hostile to the West.

Here are a couple of maps showing RAAF airfields in WW2. Many of these lingered into the 60s and it was hoped that the Sabre replacement might be able to use many of them. This turned out not to be the case, but many were retained and repurposed and I'd think in this scenario would be upgraded from the late 60s.

Here is a description of the North Australian Railway, a narrow-gauge system that was proposed to be joined to Qld system in the 50s and to the SA system from 1965. However, it was closed with the closure of a mine in 1976 and washed away in floods in 1978. A new standard gauge line was built from Adelaide to Darwin from 2001 and opened in 2004, but I think in this scenario this railway would be expanded from the late 60s.

Here is a description of Australia's only nuclear power plant project. It was at least in part due to keep the option for nuclear weapons open. Tenders were called in 1970, and the site was levelled but a new PM cancelled the project in 1971 for economic reasons before construction actually started. I think in this scenario construction would occur and Australia would have a nuclear power plant from the late 70s.

 

[Dilandu]

Here are a couple of maps showing RAAF airfields in WW2. Many of these lingered into the 60s and it was hoped that the Sabre replacement might be able to use many of them. This turned out not to be the case, but many were retained and repurposed and I'd think in this scenario would be upgraded from the late 60s.

True, some of them might be restored at least as auxilary bases.

Here is a description of the North Australian Railway, a narrow-gauge system that was proposed to be joined to Qld system in the 50s and to the SA system from 1965. However, it was closed with the closure of a mine in 1976 and washed away in floods in 1978. A new standard gauge line was built from Adelaide to Darwin from 2001 and opened in 2004, but I think in this scenario this railway would be expanded from the late 60s.

More than likely, agree!

 

[Archibald]

True, some of them might be restored at least as auxilary bases.

And there the Mirage G3 would shine. It had very good STOL capabilities, approach 125 kt touchdown 108 kt. A welcome change from the Mirage III 185 kt...

 

[Pioneer]

And there the Mirage G3 would shine. It had very good STOL capabilities, approach 125 kt touchdown 108 kt. A welcome change from the Mirage III 185 kt...

As would the Mirage F1!

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Scott Kenny]

Yes, good and valid point Dilandu, in which case do you want a flagship with a true commanding area defence missiles capability to defend a fleet/convoy? Or if you adopted the Mk26 launcher and shorter-ranged capability, but as you said, lighter, more compact, and compatible in terms of ammo & components with the Tartar systems already in service on Perth-class....

My question is actually timeline.

When would Oz be getting this ship, as that would indicate which missile system was in major use with the USN. If this is a mid-70s ship, then I'm all for Mk26s and Terrier/Standards.

 

[Rule of cool]

And there the Mirage G3 would shine. It had very good STOL capabilities, approach 125 kt touchdown 108 kt. A welcome change from the Mirage III 185 kt...

What's a G3? I've heard of the F3, G and G4 & G8.

 

[Archibald]

Check my post here, the attached documents (exceprt from Liébert & Buyck Mirage F1 landmark book).

Mirage G3 was a paper project, but pretty close from the Mirage G prototype tested by Australian pilots in 1969. Basically an operational variant of it, land and carrier based.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sukarno-stays-in-power-what-would-asutralia-do.45528/page-5#post-767144

@Pioneer The Mirage G extended family (G1, G2, G3) had some major advantages over the F1. Better engine for a start (M53 or TF306 turbofans, pick your choice) and even better STOL capabilities.

It was the VG wing done the right way (unlike the F-111 and MiG-23 miseries) and showing its true, max potential.

Even the US Navy was impressed by the Mirage G, playing with the idea of a P.1127-like multi-partite test squadron at Patuxent river, in 1969. They send a request to Dassault asking for a few more prototypes, but that offer wasn't taken seriously for a host of reasons. A pity, imagine Mirage G as the first or second incarnation of VFAX, that is: F-111B or Tomcat sidekick... obviously the role taken by the Hornet after 1974.

 

[Felocie]

The RAAF F111s entered service in 1973 and in 1980 they bought 4 x-USAF F111As as attrition replacements. Given the F111F was still in production in 1976 what are the chances that the RAAF buys a 3rd sqn of F111s plus a few attrition spares once ours are sorted?

I’m 100% sure this is stretching what’s possible but how about a B-1 variant for Australia instead of that 3rd F-111 sqn?

 

[Dilandu]

When would Oz be getting this ship, as that would indicate which missile system was in major use with the USN. If this is a mid-70s ship, then I'm all for Mk26s and Terrier/Standards.

Mid-1970s likely. It took four years to construct Vittorio Venetto, so assuming that Austalians would start to consider a helicopter & missile cruiser somewhere around 1968-1969, they would get it by 1975-1976.

 

[Dilandu]

I’m 100% sure this is stretching what’s possible but how about a B-1 variant for Australia instead of that 3rd F-111 sqn?

Hm. The B-1 are strategic bombers, and US weren't exactly eager to export even older models - partially because those planes were included in nuclear limitations talks with USSR and thus have political value as well as military one.

 

[Pioneer]

I’m 100% sure this is stretching what’s possible but how about a B-1 variant for Australia instead of that 3rd F-111 sqn?

I'd think the B-1 would be well beyond the RAAF resources - and undoubtedly at the cost of other aircraft in the RAAF's ORBAT.
If one was going to stretch the boundaries, I'd reckon the FB-111H, if it went into operation service with the USAF, but alas.....

More to follow.....


Regards
Pioneer

 

[Rule of cool]

Check my post here, the attached documents (exceprt from Liébert & Buyck Mirage F1 landmark book).

Mirage G3 was a paper project, but pretty close from the Mirage G prototype tested by Australian pilots in 1969. Basically an operational variant of it, land and carrier based.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sukarno-stays-in-power-what-would-asutralia-do.45528/page-5#post-767144

@Pioneer The Mirage G extended family (G1, G2, G3) had some major advantages over the F1. Better engine for a start (M53 or TF306 turbofans, pick your choice) and even better STOL capabilities.

It was the VG wing done the right way (unlike the F-111 and MiG-23 miseries) and showing its true, max potential.

Even the US Navy was impressed by the Mirage G, playing with the idea of a P.1127-like multi-partite test squadron at Patuxent river, in 1969. They send a request to Dassault asking for a few more prototypes, but that offer wasn't taken seriously for a host of reasons. A pity, imagine Mirage G as the first or second incarnation of VFAX, that is: F-111B or Tomcat sidekick... obviously the role taken by the Hornet after 1974.

Fair enough, although I think inertia will see it passed by in this scenario. Nothing changes until 1966-67 and things don't become dire for Australia until 1969, at which point the Mirage III has just entered service, the F111s have been delivered into storage and the first batch of A4s has been delivered and Melbourne refitted. These aircraft have their lives to type ahead of them, so likely wouldn't be changed in the short term, and by the time they come up for replacement the Mirage G series will be overtaken by the F1/2000/4000.

 

[Rule of cool]

I’m 100% sure this is stretching what’s possible but how about a B-1 variant for Australia instead of that 3rd F-111 sqn?

The B1B didn't enter service until 1986, and I doubt it would be ever offered for export. F111 until 1976 and F15E from 1988 would be more likely.

 

[Rule of cool]

My question is actually timeline.

When would Oz be getting this ship, as that would indicate which missile system was in major use with the USN. If this is a mid-70s ship, then I'm all for Mk26s and Terrier/Standards.

Mid-1970s likely. It took four years to construct Vittorio Venetto, so assuming that Austalians would start to consider a helicopter & missile cruiser somewhere around 1968-1969, they would get it by 1975-1976.

The major warship Australia was looking at in the late 60s was the DDL, which by 1972 had evolved into a multi-role destroyer with Mk13 Standard launcher and Wessex helicopter facilities. The RAN's 'capital ship' would be the Melbourne which had received a new CAG and refit to handle it in the late 60s.

 

[Dilandu]

The major warship Australia was looking at in the late 60s was the DDL, which by 1972 had evolved into a multi-role destroyer with Mk13 Standard launcher and Wessex helicopter facilities. The RAN's 'capital ship' would be the Melbourne which had received a new CAG and refit to handle it in the late 60s.

We are discussing the possibility of replacing Melbourne with a cheaper (and less crew-demanding) missile & helicopter cruiser in 1970s.

 

[Rule of cool]

We are discussing the possibility of replacing Melbourne with a cheaper (and less crew-demanding) missile & helicopter cruiser in 1970s.

Yes, but what I am saying is that given Melbourne had been refitted and re-armed to serve until the 80s that's not a likely course of action, particularly given how ill-suited the late 60s RAAF is for this new paradigm. The Melbourne's ability to sink ships in the NE IO will be crucial until the RAAF can do the same with the Mirage replacement.

 

[Lascaris]

Technically any number - they are semi-active radar homing missiles, so any number of them could home on the target, illuminated by fire control radar. Both Terrier and Tartar fire control system could work with two illumination radars per single launcher. I.e. two targets could be engaged simultaneously by as many missiles as launchers could handle.

The limitation is, that SM-1 missiles required the target to be constantly illuminated. So as long as missiles are flying, the radar can't switch to other target. That's why I decided to use two-missiles-per-target scheme; while it is possible to launch each missile against separate targets (thus engaging two simultaneously) it won't actually gave big advantage in terms of time - and the kill probability would drop to 0,6-0,7, if any target is engaged only by single missile.

Time sharing the illuminators wasn't achieved till the 1980s with Aegis and NTU. Before that yes you can fire any number of missiles against a single target as long as you keep it illuminated. But if you cannot redirect the missiles you have in the air at a different target and correct me but this was not possible in the 1870s what is the point of more than a pair of missiles per target with any decent Pk?

 

[Rule of cool]

I’ve been thinking about the Indonesian Bomber vs RAN carrier scenario, which I likely started when I said the Melbourne could conduct a strike against Indonesia during a 70s shooting war.



The first part of a carrier-bomber battle is for the bomber-owning air force to find the carrier. I’m sure Indonesia would have some SIGINT and other intelligence sources that give them a vague idea if the CBG is in the east or the west, close to Indonesia or Australia. That narrows it down to the next step, actually locating the CBG with enough accuracy to direct bombers into position for an attack that the carrier can’t escape from. The Soviets had 4 MPA aircraft in this era;

• Be10 Jet seaplane which was built in tiny numbers, wasn’t exported and left service in 1968.
• Be12 Turboprop seaplane which was built in good numbers from 1961, exported to Egypt, Syria and Vietnam. This would likely be the first MPA Indonesia gets but would be easy prey even for A4s.
• Il38, built in reasonable numbers from 1967 and exported to India in 1977. I’d think Indonesia could get some of these, maybe in the early 70s, they’d be more difficult for A4s to intercept but wouldn’t be able to get close to the Melbourne.
• Tu142, king of the hill, the perfect solution. Virtually impossible for the 70s RAN to shoot down, 16+ hours flight endurance. Not exported until 1988, won’t be available to Indonesia in the 70s.

I think a mixed force of Be12s and Il38s would struggle to get a ‘no escape zone’ fix for bombers on the Melbourne CBG at longer ranges but would do well enough at closer ranges. Melbourne approaching Indonesia for a strike would be taking a hefty risk, however this wouldn’t be done lightly and would have to be aiming to achieve highly impactful results. Doing sea control further out Melbourne would likely be too hard to accurately locate for a bomber strike.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I’ve been thinking about the Indonesian Bomber vs RAN carrier scenario, which I likely started when I said the Melbourne could conduct a strike against Indonesia during a 70s shooting war.



The first part of a carrier-bomber battle is for the bomber-owning air force to find the carrier. I’m sure Indonesia would have some SIGINT and other intelligence sources that give them a vague idea if the CBG is in the east or the west, close to Indonesia or Australia. That narrows it down to the next step, actually locating the CBG with enough accuracy to direct bombers into position for an attack that the carrier can’t escape from. The Soviets had 4 MPA aircraft in this era;

• Be10 Jet seaplane which was built in tiny numbers, wasn’t exported and left service in 1968.
• Be12 Turboprop seaplane which was built in good numbers from 1961, exported to Egypt, Syria and Vietnam. This would likely be the first MPA Indonesia gets but would be easy prey even for A4s.
• Il38, built in reasonable numbers from 1967 and exported to India in 1977. I’d think Indonesia could get some of these, maybe in the early 70s, they’d be more difficult for A4s to intercept but wouldn’t be able to get close to the Melbourne.
• Tu142, king of the hill, the perfect solution. Virtually impossible for the 70s RAN to shoot down, 16+ hours flight endurance. Not exported until 1988, won’t be available to Indonesia in the 70s.

I think a mixed force of Be12s and Il38s would struggle to get a ‘no escape zone’ fix for bombers on the Melbourne CBG at longer ranges but would do well enough at closer ranges. Melbourne approaching Indonesia for a strike would be taking a hefty risk, however this wouldn’t be done lightly and would have to be aiming to achieve highly impactful results. Doing sea control further out Melbourne would likely be too hard to accurately locate for a bomber strike.

I'd expect Indonesia to have many Be12, and probably start replacing them with Il38s in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

 

[Rule of cool]

I'd expect Indonesia to have many Be12, and probably start replacing them with Il38s in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

The RAAF had 2 sqns of P2 Neptune's with 12 a/c each, replaced by P3s with 10 a/c each. Not to mention the RANs Gannets and Trackers.

Indonesia would need at least similar numbers to patrol its huge Indian Ocean front, internal waters and seas to the north.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The RAAF had 2 sqns of P2 Neptune's with 12 a/c each, replaced by P3s with 10 a/c each. Not to mention the RANs Gannets and Trackers.

Indonesia would need at least similar numbers to patrol its huge Indian Ocean front, internal waters and seas to the north.

Sounds like a good start for an estimate!

It's kinda mind-boggling just how big Indonesia is.

 

[Dilandu]

Time sharing the illuminators wasn't achieved till the 1980s with Aegis and NTU. Before that yes you can fire any number of missiles against a single target as long as you keep it illuminated. But if you cannot redirect the missiles you have in the air at a different target and correct me but this was not possible in the 1870s what is the point of more than a pair of missiles per target with any decent Pk?

Hm! You are right, I miscalculated here! My apologies.

I recalculated. Assuming that it took about 5 seconds to switch the illuminator on a new target & launch a new salvo - the Mk-26 produce a 12 salvoes, i.e. 11 likely interceptions.

For the Mk-10 situation is the same, since the launcher is a main limitation here.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Here are a couple of maps showing RAAF airfields in WW2. Many of these lingered into the 60s and it was hoped that the Sabre replacement might be able to use many of them. This turned out not to be the case, but many were retained and repurposed and I'd think in this scenario would be upgraded from the late 60s.

Dare I say, ideal ground for an A-10 buy?

 

[Grey Havoc]

I'd expect Indonesia to have many Be12, and probably start replacing them with Il38s in the late 1970s/early 1980s.

They might hold on to the Be-12s while adding Il-38s, given Indonesia's geography and the wide range of tasks the Be-12 could carry out as a seaplane (also ASW seaplanes do have advantages over ASW landplanes).

In a 'Wall not fallen' scenario, it is possible that an intact Soviet Union might also supply a few examples of the Beriev A-40 during the 1990s.

 

[Volkodav]

Okay, about Terrier/SM-1ER vs Tartar/SM-2MR.

I assumed that the attack would be conducted by Tu-16K bombers, with two KSR-2 missiles each (NATO AS-5 Kelt). The missiles would be launched from 100+ km standoff distance, on transsonic speed about 1 Mach.

1) The Mk-10 GMLS (Terrier one) armed with RIM-67A SM-1ER missiles (65 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missiles close to 70 km. It got time for about seven 2-missile salvos (30 second reloads), before KSR-2 would be too close to be engaged. Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, the six missiles could reasonably be shot down.

2) The Mk-26 GMLS (Tartar one) armed with RIM-66B SM-1MR missiles (45 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missile close to 50 km. It got time for about fifteen 2-missile salvos (10 second reload), before KSR-2 would be too close to be engaged. Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, about thirteen missiles could be reasonably shot down.

3) The two Mk-13 GMLS (Tartar ones) armed with RIM-66B SM-1MR missiles (45 km max range) opened fire when the attacking missile close to 50 km. It got time for about twelve 1-missile shots each (13 second reload). Assuming the 0,9 kill probability, about eleven missiles could be reasonably shot down.

So I still think that Tartar is a much better solution. Even the crumblesome configuration of two Mk-13 launchers produces twice as many hits as Mk-10 Terrier GMLS.

Thats the conclusion the USN came to, hence the double ended Mk-13 on the Californias and the Mk-26 on the Virginias, Kidds and Ticonderoga Flight 1 ships.

 

[Volkodav]

A few other things that might happen if Sukarno stayed in power beyond 1966 and remained friendly with the Soviets and hostile to the West.

Here are a couple of maps showing RAAF airfields in WW2. Many of these lingered into the 60s and it was hoped that the Sabre replacement might be able to use many of them. This turned out not to be the case, but many were retained and repurposed and I'd think in this scenario would be upgraded from the late 60s.

Here is a description of the North Australian Railway, a narrow-gauge system that was proposed to be joined to Qld system in the 50s and to the SA system from 1965. However, it was closed with the closure of a mine in 1976 and washed away in floods in 1978. A new standard gauge line was built from Adelaide to Darwin from 2001 and opened in 2004, but I think in this scenario this railway would be expanded from the late 60s.

Here is a description of Australia's only nuclear power plant project. It was at least in part due to keep the option for nuclear weapons open. Tenders were called in 1970, and the site was levelled but a new PM cancelled the project in 1971 for economic reasons before construction actually started. I think in this scenario construction would occur and Australia would have a nuclear power plant from the late 70s.

They were dirt stips and the sealed highway adjacent to them was probably better, although not good enough for a modern fighter, even a SAAB type.

 

[Volkodav]

The major warship Australia was looking at in the late 60s was the DDL, which by 1972 had evolved into a multi-role destroyer with Mk13 Standard launcher and Wessex helicopter facilities. The RAN's 'capital ship' would be the Melbourne which had received a new CAG and refit to handle it in the late 60s.

All planned ten DDLs built instead of the FFG-07, ending up as replacements for the Darings and Rivers, plus maybe a similar number of Type 21 derivatives with US weapons and sensors, i.e. Mk-29 with NATO Sea Sparrow. An interesting option would have been the RN Escort Cruiser, some of them had Tartar with a MK-13.

The long term minimum RAN planned, even after Sukarnos removal, was 23 destroyers and frigates and three carriers to support a two ocean navy. Of course this never happened but its interesting to look at was planned as the minimum in (comparatively) peaceful times.

 

[Volkodav]

The RAN was apparently quite enamoured with the Lynx / Skua combo (and prior to that SS12 on a Wasp or Allouette) and Seaking for ASW. Harrier was also seen as desirable, with a radar equipped AV-8B or Sea Harrier both seen as suitable.

3 DDGs, no helicopters, but Ikara, escorting three helicopter carriers, 10 DDL and 10 GP Frigates/Sloops with helicopters. Plans for missile craft as well.

 

[Felocie]

I’ve been thinking about the Indonesian Bomber vs RAN carrier scenario, which I likely started when I said the Melbourne could conduct a strike against Indonesia during a 70s shooting war.



The first part of a carrier-bomber battle is for the bomber-owning air force to find the carrier. I’m sure Indonesia would have some SIGINT and other intelligence sources that give them a vague idea if the CBG is in the east or the west, close to Indonesia or Australia. That narrows it down to the next step, actually locating the CBG with enough accuracy to direct bombers into position for an attack that the carrier can’t escape from. The Soviets had 4 MPA aircraft in this era;

• Be10 Jet seaplane which was built in tiny numbers, wasn’t exported and left service in 1968.
• Be12 Turboprop seaplane which was built in good numbers from 1961, exported to Egypt, Syria and Vietnam. This would likely be the first MPA Indonesia gets but would be easy prey even for A4s.
• Il38, built in reasonable numbers from 1967 and exported to India in 1977. I’d think Indonesia could get some of these, maybe in the early 70s, they’d be more difficult for A4s to intercept but wouldn’t be able to get close to the Melbourne.
• Tu142, king of the hill, the perfect solution. Virtually impossible for the 70s RAN to shoot down, 16+ hours flight endurance. Not exported until 1988, won’t be available to Indonesia in the 70s.

I think a mixed force of Be12s and Il38s would struggle to get a ‘no escape zone’ fix for bombers on the Melbourne CBG at longer ranges but would do well enough at closer ranges. Melbourne approaching Indonesia for a strike would be taking a hefty risk, however this wouldn’t be done lightly and would have to be aiming to achieve highly impactful results. Doing sea control further out Melbourne would likely be too hard to accurately locate for a bomber strike.

What do you envision the CBG as looking like? Personally I envisioned the RAN carrier to operate still as part of an ASW task force and trying to use jets to keep aviation assets at a distance given the RAN can’t operate a huge number of platforms. Would be interested to hear other thoughts tho

 

[Dilandu]

The first part of a carrier-bomber battle is for the bomber-owning air force to find the carrier. I’m sure Indonesia would have some SIGINT and other intelligence sources that give them a vague idea if the CBG is in the east or the west, close to Indonesia or Australia. That narrows it down to the next step, actually locating the CBG with enough accuracy to direct bombers into position for an attack that the carrier can’t escape from. The Soviets had 4 MPA aircraft in this era;

It actually depend a lot how good Australians were in EMCON. In late 1950s - early 1960s, Soviet Navy have a rather good understanding where exactly NATO warships are by tracking their radar emissions with a sophisticated array of land-based, naval and aerial stations.

 

[Rule of cool]

All planned ten DDLs built instead of the FFG-07, ending up as replacements for the Darings and Rivers, plus maybe a similar number of Type 21 derivatives with US weapons and sensors, i.e. Mk-29 with NATO Sea Sparrow. An interesting option would have been the RN Escort Cruiser, some of them had Tartar with a MK-13.

The long term minimum RAN planned, even after Sukarnos removal, was 23 destroyers and frigates and three carriers to support a two ocean navy. Of course this never happened but its interesting to look at was planned as the minimum in (comparatively) peaceful times.

IIIUC the 10 DDLs plan was in 1966 when they were planned to be 1,000t corvettes for patrolling Indonesia during the Confrontation. By 1972 they'd grown to 4,200t multi-role destroyers and only 3 were planned, however they are a key target for expansion in this scenario, i'd guess at least 4 would be built to replace the Darings and grow the fleet by 1 by 1980.

I think the Attack class patrol boat replacement in the late 70s would be far heftier than the Fremantle class. Maybe not a full 1,000t corvette but maybe 500t and able to carry a 76mm gun and a second weapon like a Limbo mortar to back up a fleet unit in a convoy.

 

[Rule of cool]

They were dirt stips and the sealed highway adjacent to them was probably better, although not good enough for a modern fighter, even a SAAB type.

IIUC it was a mix, some like Truscott were staging strips for USAAF B24s and B25s so would be the best candidates for upgrade and expansion. Tindal and Learmonth were both WW2 bases that were upgraded in the 60s and 70s.

I doubt there were many sealed roads up there in the 60s, but I'd think this scenario would see large scale development in the north.

 

[Rule of cool]

It actually depend a lot how good Australians were in EMCON. In late 1950s - early 1960s, Soviet Navy have a rather good understanding where exactly NATO warships are by tracking their radar emissions with a sophisticated array of land-based, naval and aerial stations.

As good as the USN and RN, who they conducted SEATO exercises with and operationally in the Indonesian Confrontation and Vietnam War.

 

[Rule of cool]

What do you envision the CBG as looking like? Personally I envisioned the RAN carrier to operate still as part of an ASW task force and trying to use jets to keep aviation assets at a distance given the RAN can’t operate a huge number of platforms. Would be interested to hear other thoughts tho

I think by the early 60s the escort fleet would be 3 DDGs, 3 DDs refitted with Ikara and Sea Cat and 6 River DEs. In an emergency like a shooting war with Indonesia I'd expect 9+ of these ships to be available, so 4 would be with the Melbourne, certainly a DDG and maybe 2, certainly a DE and maybe a DD to make up the numbers.

This would be a 'Sea Control' Task Group, keeping the Indonesian surface fleet penned-in close to home where they can get fighter cover and providing ASW and AAW bubbles of various sizes in its vicinity.